So why are we going back to the Moon?

So NASA has plans to send humans back to the Moon in the next 15 years or so (pending funding, of course). Why do this? Isn't the Moon so 1960s?

Lunar scientist Paul Spudis comes to the rescue and tries to answer these questions in the Washington Post yesterday. How convincing is he?

The essence of his argument:

The moon is important for three reasons: science, inspiration and resources.

The scientific extravaganza of sending humans to the Moon, according to Spudis, consists of learning the history of our corner of the Solar System and using the Moon as a platform for radio astronomy.

Spudis has been studying the Moon for decades, so it would be understandable for him to play up the importance of the Moon to learning about the early history of our planetary neighborhood. The broader community of planetary scientists does not appear to agree, however, as there have been virtually no scientific missions sent to the Moon in the last three decades, while numerous ones have been sent to every other corner of the Solar System. If science at the Moon has not been worth sending unmanned robots, why is it worth sending humans on missions that have a significant risk to life and limb?

Is it for the inspirational value?

In 21st-century America, our existence depends on an educated, technically literate workforce, motivated and schooled in complex scientific disciplines. Tackling the challenges of creating a functioning society off-planet will require not only the best technical knowledge we can muster but also the best imaginations. One cannot develop a creative imagination, the renewable resource of a vibrant society, without confronting and surmounting unknowns and challenges on new frontiers.

Yet we have plenty of unknowns and "new frontier" challenges here on Earth, which is a far more fascinating, complicated, and lively place than the Moon. The idea that our society would be relegated to a creative desert without the challenge of doing something our grandfathers did is nonsensical—and insulting.

So perhaps it's all those great, valuable resources the Moon holds, just waiting to be tapped?

Water is an extremely valuable commodity in space -- in its liquid form, it supports human life, and it can be broken down into its two components, hydrogen and oxygen.

Indeed, if there's one thing where the Moon beats Earth, it's with water. The Moon, aka "Water World". Wait! The Earth already has water. In place, it's miles deep! Why in the world would we go to the Moon, where the "Sea of Tranquility" refers to a bone-dry lava bed, for water that may not even be there? Because, according to Spudis, we can use it to make fuel. Fuel for what?

The ability to make fuel on the moon will allow routine access to Earth-moon space, the zone in which all of our space assets reside.

Ah, so we would go to the Moon to make fuel for going to the Moon! Or to get back to Earth after going to the Moon. Or something like that.

But are there are other resources that may be useful?

Solar power, collected on the moon and beamed to Earth and throughout the space between the two, can provide a clean and reliable energy source not only for space-based applications but ultimately for users on Earth as well.

Clean and reliable energy for us stuck here on Earth. Sounds great! But is that realistic, or just a pipe dream?

Lunar solar power solves the apparent "showstopper" of other space-based solar power systems -- the high cost of getting the solar arrays into space. Instead of launching arrays from the deep gravity well of Earth, we would use the local soil and make hundreds of tons of solar panels on the moon.

This would be great if the infrastructure to make hundreds of tons of solar panels on the moon just magically appeared and didn't have to be launched from the deep gravity well of Earth itself.

Typical of boosters of NASA's new lunar vision, Spudis clearly feels there is an element of manifest destiny involved:

To become a multiplanet species, we must master the skills of extracting local resources, build our capability to journey and explore in hostile regions, and create new reservoirs of human culture and experience. That long journey begins on the moon -- the staging ground, supply station and classroom for our voyage into the universe.

Yet the justification for why becoming a "mutiplanet species" is necessary, feasable, or even desirable is, as we have seen, feeble.

Maybe there is indeed a reason to send humans back to the Moon—to avoid the national embarrassment of ending this country's experiment with manned space travel with the fizzing out of the troubled Space Shuttle program over the next few years. (In fact, Spudis himself was quoted to this effect in a September article: "[I]t’s better than the alternative, which is extinction of human exploration.")

Perhaps that reason fits in Spudis' "inspirational" category. But I disagree. Whatever its other shortcomings, a goal of sending humans to a far more fascinating and challenging destination—the planet Mars—would be inspirational. Returning to an airless, waterless, lifeless world first visited nearly two generations ago is not.

Comments

[Jimmy K.]

Let's see now, Why run a foot race, horses are faster and I understand Camels can beat them.
Why climb Everest again, it's already been done.
Why search for new and different worlds, no matter Star Trek has already shown us all we need to know. Why teach a child to walk, they can get around crawling. and on and on.... Come on!!

[Jimmy K.]

opppps,forgot the last line. We need to go back to the moon before we go to mars.....

[Peter]

"We need to go back to the moon before we go to mars"

Maybe this is true. (Maybe not.) But even if so, it was not mentioned in the article. And then, what are the justifications for sending humans to Mars, besides it being a more inspiring destination than the Moon? That article doesn't even touch on any of those points.

Going to the Moon would be exciting and interesting (at least to the subset of the population that is fascinated by this stuff, of which I am one), but is that sufficient justification?

Spudis and most other prominent backers of this venture don't appear to think so, so they come up with these other reasons that are less than convincing.

[robojocks]

well I think they should fix new orleans first. I suppose 1300 dead US citzens don't matter.

[steve]

I bet the Lunar scientist Spud head doesn't live in New Orleans

[LoB]

Hmm....let's follow the money behind all of this lunar gas station hoopla to see who is supporting this idea and why. Ever since 1996, when a Science article came out claiming that one martian meteorite might contain fossilized evidence of Martian life, the search for martian life forms and the water that might contain evidence of these life forms has become a NASA priority. This means that NASA money is flowing in the direction of mars-related projects, and any grant-dependent scientist who wants to cash in on that bootie would be wise to imagine a mars connection for their own pet projects. So how's an accomplished lunar scientist supposed to get big bucks from NASA without introducing a mars twist anyway? That's getting harder and harder to pull off. But, no worries - I'll bet the lunar gas station would require years and years of analysis by, well, lunar scientists! But hey, don't whip out the guns yet bubba, lunar scientists have to make a living too. I agree with you and your readers, the big question is whether or not their self-serving ploy is good for this country (which of course includes New Orleans).

How do we know how seriously the lunar gas station idea is being taken over there at NASA headquarters? If it really is cost effective to extract fuels from lunar materials, then someone ought to be able to present a plausible cost-benefit analysis showing that the savings over some reasonable amount of time far outweighs the costs of establishing and maintaining this lunar 'gas station'. Whew - that would be hard to do, and I haven't seen one. Have you? If they haven't even gotten that far yet in the 15 plus years that I, for one, have personally been hearing about the lunar gas station, then I won't bother to start holding my breath yet. But wait, what makes me assume that NASA will feel compelled to consider a cost-benefit analysis? ;-)

[Graeme Frear]

Hi,
Perhaps there are unexplored areas on Earth, ocean trenches etc. however is anyone considering opening up real estate there?

Why the moon? Because it is three days away, there's still a chance of safety in the event of catastrophic failure. Rescue missions are still a feasible undertaking.

Frontiers are necessary for the human psyche (IMHO), it provides for the escapists and the XYY factor.

The moon is a stepping stone to all other points in the star system and beyond, the gravity well being six times less than Earth.

It gives the human race a second chance for survival should anything happen to the fourth planet.
(Remember the proverb about all your eggs in one basket)

It will give thousands of people dreams of a new future, remember the "U.S. of America" was built on those. Perhaps another gold rush would be nice, except for the transportation costs.

Perhaps a moral obligation as well to the rest of us who inhabit planet Earth, we who are not Americans, and have little hope for territorial expansion, we who could say, "we've helped build the economic and military empire named 'U.S.A', now it's time to give something back to the millions who toiled to help that dream come true..."

So, that's my 2c worth,
Cheers, Graeme.