1. Forty years after the first mission to the moon and the project’s termination in the 1970s there is as yet no vision for how mankind will move forward exploring other planets with manned space vehicles.
2. With the US space shuttle program ending in 2010, the only country that has sent a man to the moon will no longer have the means to get its astronauts into orbit and will have to rely on others, such as Russia and possibly China.
3. The benefits far outweigh the risks and costs associated with manned space travel. In order for man to thrive he must continue to reach out to new horizons.
4. A new vision involving manned space flight to the moon as well as to Mars and beyond should be made a national and international priority. For this, there is an important role to play by leaders in galvanizing support for such a program.
2009 marks the 40th anniversary of the first human landing on the moon. There has been talk recently over what should be inferred about human progress from this milestone; what took less than a decade to do with the most primitive technology for the first time in human history has not been repeated with far superior technology in four. Where would space travel be today had the same intensity that took man to the moon carried him forward since? Unfortunately since 1972, no manned missions have gone to the moon, to say nothing of Mars, its moons or nearby asteroids – all of which conceivably were right around the corner at the height of the Apollo program.
During the 1970s, not only were funds scarce, but so were visionaries. Although the space shuttle program was seen by some in the 1970s and early 1980s as something that would augment a lunar program rather than replace it, congressional committees and presidents had other plans. 1 By 1980, it had already been eight years since the end of the Apollo lunar program and by then short-term pressing issues, such as the Cold War menace of a Soviet Union on the march, loomed. While the Reagan administration was much friendlier to NASA than the previous three presidents after Kennedy and Johnson, and despite talk of revitalizing the lunar program and of manned missions to Mars, the administration did not see either materialize. Instead, the shuttle program simply served to satiate an unimaginative public space-craving without offering as great a value for the investment.
The West did go on to win the Cold War and enjoy the largest peacetime economic expansion in history during the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. However, while the post-Soviet era “peace dividend” subsequently freed up a great deal of resources, this opportunity was squandered. The US lacked then, as well as today, an aggressive forward-looking program similar to the one it had during the 1960s.
One reason that manned space exploration beyond low earth orbit was ended in the 1970s and what may well leave it neglected today is a zero-sum game approach to space exploration versus monetary attention to social issues within the political sphere. However, there is an important rebuttal to this, aside from the comparatively modest 4% or less of the federal US budget required, is that such a space program could save mankind’s very existence. Just this week a large object, either an asteroid or an as yet unknown comet, slammed into the atmosphere of Jupiter. This may not have been significant of itself except that this as yet unknown object was the size of Earth. 2 It would therefore seem to benefit rather directly rich and poor alike to advance the prospect of survival through genuine ownership of our immediate planetary environment.
Another difficulty appears on its face to be a less depressing but equally distracting cultural self-obsession. The 1990s ushered in a culture of escapism and personal entertainment unparalleled in human history. While prosperity is certainly something to be applauded, so too is a healthy sense of priority for the long term strategic issues and real technological regression should be of serious concern. However, it is reasonable to think that if a truly ambitious and worthwhile space program were begun, such a program would easily recapture the public imagination. However, vision alone without proper funding means that the plans laid out by President George W. Bush for a return to the moon by 2021 are at best dreams. As such, promoting a new vision would be an area that would best suit a leadership that can effectively articulate that vision to the public and also advance such efforts in government, as we saw with John F. Kennedy.
Today we have an exciting array of new technologies that give us an astounding advantage over our lunar forebears; for instance, our computer and navigational technology is thousands of times more sophisticated, as is our understanding of space flight in general. It is astounding to consider, for instance, that the average mobile phone has more computational power than the Apollo moon lander. In addition, new and exciting propulsion systems are on the verge of becoming reality or are already in some form in use that could greatly increase speed and efficiency – a matter of greatest concern for any missions to the moon and beyond. For instance, the European Space Agency and partners in Australia developed the ion engine earlier this decade, which Europe used for its lunar drone flight, SMART-1, six years ago. Phenomenal improvements by ESA, NASA, and others mean that with the same amount of fuel, the newest generation of ion engine already tested could explore the very edges of the solar system. These new engines are also more compact, have better stability control, and are more powerful. 3, 4
Future developments are also likely. Researchers are currently working on anti-matter propulsion, which would also offer faster and more efficient forms of travel. As an aside, the project has already yielded medical benefits, as the primary method for storing anti-protons also creates O15, which is used for PET scans. Anti-protons are still somewhat difficult to acquire in large amounts, so this and similar methods of transport, are as yet in their infancy. 5 There are also several other forms of propulsion on the drawing board or in various stages of testing and development, which far outstrip anything used in 1969.
Dissent, apathy, and imperfect technology cannot nullify the reality that space travel and exploration are necessary and offer an incredible wealth of technology and progress not always easily anticipated, as history has shown us with past lunar missions. In fact, every time man has pushed himself hard to venture beyond the established bounds of his security there have been tremendous benefits that follow; it is one of the things often learned in life – that the reward is worth dying for and the risk makes life worth living. Of course, in this case, the reward to the risks associated with space flight may actually be life itself. The shuttle program will end next year with no new vehicle or vision in sight and leaving Russia and China as the only two nations capable of sending a man into space. The fact that the only nation ever to send a man to the moon is effectively out of the space business is astonishing.
This week, the crew of the aging space shuttle Endeavor celebrated man’s first landing on the moon by trying to fix a broken toilet on the space station as elderly former Apollo astronauts on earth decried the “waste” of a lunar program discarded. 6, 7 This does not rise to the level of what a space program should be. 8 What lacks is the passion and the will to make manned interplanetary travel a reality again in our time. There is no material reason why astronauts are not presently doing so; therefore, perhaps Barack Obama could use his bully pulpit to usher in a new era of exploration as John F. Kennedy did almost five decades ago. If so, we would have the one thing so desperately needed: a vision. Without a vision, men perish.
Martin Kite-Powell is a Research Assistant with theHenry Jackson Society
1. Frank Sietzen, J. (2003, September 23). How Jim Fulton Saved the Space Shuttle. Retrieved from SpaceRef: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=869
2. Jupiter Struck by Object, NASA Images Confirm. (2009, July 21). Retrieved from Fox News, Reuters: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534160,00.html
3. Space propulsion breakthrough: new spacecraft ion engine tested. (2006, January 11). Retrieved from Physorg.com: http://www.physorg.com/news9786.html
4. Shiga, D. (2007, September 28). Next-generation ion engine sets new thrust record. Retrieved from The New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12709-nextgeneration-ion-engine-sets-new-thrust-record.html
5. Antimatter. (2001, February 27). Retrieved from Penn State Propulsion Engineering Research Center : http://www.engr.psu.edu/antimatter/introduction.html
6. Sutton, I. K. (2009, July 20). Toilet back in service on crowded space station . Retrieved from Reuters: http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/B291722.htm
7. Apollo astronauts bemoan state of U.S. space program. (2009, July 20). Retrieved from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE56J4O020090720?feedType=RSS&feedName=scienceNews&rpc=22&sp=true
8. Krauthammer, C. (2009, July 17). The Lunacy of Our Retreat from Space. Retrieved from National Review Online: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Yjc3N2E2YmQ1MzYyMmM0OTdmYjFlMmQ5ZmY3OTUxYzc=