Blogs / Bad Astronomy

How kewl is this? The Lunar and Planetary Institute and several other sponsors are holding a conference on The Exploration of Phobos and Deimos, the moons of Mars.

Well, sure, that’s cool. But what makes this kewl is the subtitle: "The Science, Robotic Reconnaissance, & the Human Exploration of the Two Moons of Mars".

Yeah, you read that right: Human Exploration.

Kewl.

It makes sense. We’re building bigger rockets to go to the Moon and Mars. When you get to Mars, you have to go into orbit anyway. If the orbit is the same height above the surface as one of the two moons, then by the laws of physics you’re moving at the same speed as the moon around Mars anyway. Rendezvous is easy. But it’s also easier going to the surface of the moon from there than it is to get down to the surface of Mars! To touch down on the red planet, you need retrorockets, parachutes, maybe an airbag or two, because Mars has serious gravity and an atmosphere.

But the moons are airless, and have very little gravity. A small retrorocket is all you need to get down. It’s thought (and it’s really pretty certain) that Phobos and Deimos are captured asteroids, so this is an excellent chance to see an asteroid up close. We can get to near-Earth asteroids more easily, but if we’re exploring Mars anyway, this is almost a freebie.

There was a show on the Discovery Channel a few years ago about the moons in the solar system, and my old friend Dan Durda was being interviewed. They showed him mimicking what it would be like to be on the surface of Phobos. He said you could pick up a rock and throw it into orbit around the little moon. He’s right, and maybe, just maybe, by 2030 or so we’ll see that actually happening.

I’m of two minds about sending humans to Mars (the moon is closer, easier, and I think has more to offer in the immediate future), but I will not and cannot deny the kewl factor.

Whenever I write about politics, religion, or something that is not 100% straight-up science, I get a handful of protests in the comments, usually along the lines of "I came here because this is supposed to be an astronomy blog…"^*.

Well, for the n^th time, I’ll let y’all know: this is primarily a science blog, but not exclusively so. I think people like what I write about astronomy because I add a dimension of humanity to it, since I’m personally involved with some of it, and I know some of the fun back story. But that same humanity means I’m human, and I have other things on my mind too.

This may sound crass, but it’s true: it’s my blog, and I’ll write what I want to. If you don’t like it, there are lots of other sites about astronomy on the web. Spare me the lectures, the drama, and the grandstanding in the comments. If you don’t want to read my blog, that’s fine. I can’t please everyone, and by its very nature a scientific and skeptical blog will make some people upset. But I am not going to change my style, my topics, or my behavior (unless there is some evidence-based reason, of course). So if you’re gonna go, just go. Being dramatic about it in the comments won’t change anything.

But before you leave, take a good look at whatever it was that I wrote that ticked you off. Why? Because in a recent post, I was accused of bashing Christians, bashing religion, saying that all global warming deniers are also young-Earth creationists, and I’m sure if I look more carefully there’s something in the comments about me eating kittens, too. I never said any of that. People are reading their own issues into what I wrote, and and not reading what I actually wrote.

How ironic is that?

So here is my stance, for those of you who still don’t get it: I am a scientist, a skeptic, a science fiction fan, a father, a pet owner, and a human being. I have opinions, and I have a blog, and therefore I will write about my opinions. I try very hard to base my opinions on well-grounded, evidence-based reasoning, and I try very hard not to extrapolate beyond what is reasonable.

But I will not tolerate the attacks on science, whether they come from politicians, religious zealots, New Age gurus, or regular old folks. And I will speak out.

Update: Coincidentally, PZ Myers at Pharyngula just wrote a similar post (his is about religion), as did Chris Pirillo (about politics). Make of this what you will.

^* And why don’t these same people complain when I post about cartoons I like, or some funny website I found? After all, those are "off-topic" too. Could it be that I simply don’t have the same political or religious affiliation that they do, and they don’t like it? I know some people just don’t want to hear more about those topics, but still, I don’t think that applies to most of the folks who leave in a huff. I strongly suspect that many (but not all) of those who do leave in a flash of drama need to very carefully examine their own beliefs; they are guilty of precisely the crimes they accuse me of.