We Choose to Go to the Moon

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon, we choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard...- J.F.K. This famous quote by President Kennedy was one that dawned the space exploration age for man. We broke free from our home planet, and went out into the solar system to explore new worlds. This was the early 60s that J.F.K. made this speech, which ultimately lead to the man on the moon in 1969. Forty years later we have no presence on the moon, and we have no plan on going back. The moon is our closest neighbor and the most logical step for human space exploration. The author of the piece The New Space Program, which was published in the New York Times, claims we don't need to go to the Moon, and is in favor of making Mars our primary goal for human space exploration. The author argues Mars is "the planet most like earth and of greatest scientific interest." Mars should not be our primary goal, and the Moon should because of its known water and energy resources, its proximity to earth, international significance, and as a proving ground for NASA's future missions into the solar system and beyond.

The author claims that going to the moon would not, "... yield a rich trove of new scientific information...", but NASA's mission LCROSS the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (NASA) just recently discovered that in some craters on the moon there are high levels of water concentration. This is essential for a base on the moon because water can not only be used for drinking, but can be broken down into oxygen to breathe and hydrogen for energy. This new scientific information greatly changes what astronauts need to bring with them on explorations. Also the idea of mining the moon for helium-3 is another plus. Jack Schmitt the last man to walk on the moon, and the only geologist proposed mining helium-3 in his book Return to the Moon. (Schmitt) Helium-3 could be used as fuel for new fusion reactors as a viable alternative to fossil fuels. (Spudis) The moon still surprises and inspires us to think of new technologies.

The author claims that Mars should be the next priority for human space exploration; therefore, development of new technologies to get to Mars faster is first and foremost. Mars should not be our singular goal, especially when it comes to colonization. Mars is not always the same distance from Earth. The distance varies by 350 million miles, which means even with faster propulsion technology, there can only be a few launch windows, making it very hard to re-supply explorers. The distance also hampers communication with explorers taking the signal, which travels at the speed of light almost an hour to get home. The Moon on the other hand stays at a constant distance from Earth and communication is almost instantaneous. Mars is also a dangerous place with dust storms that can last years, and destroy instruments and life support systems. The Moon on the other hand gives us a similar peaceful body to test these new systems and technologies, as well as new information about our closest neighbor, which has more then just water to discover. The Moon is about a 2 day trip from Earth, which is extremely close when compared to the 6 months it takes to get to Mars. That is the biggest problem in space exploration is the sheer distances that need to be traveled. The author claims we need faster technologies to get to Mars. We already do with plasma rockets, solar sails and anti-matter. (Connolly) These are now being proven on the ground, lets try them in space. We need a testing range were we can responsibly test these new systems. Mars is too remote for responsible testing of unproven systems. A base on the moon would give us that testing range to experiment with new space technologies.

The Moon's proximity to the Earth also raises political questions, if we as Americans don't colonize the Moon, will Russia, Japan or India? Japan is already working up plans for a trip to the moon with a possible permanent presence. (Normile) This is unacceptable, we were the first to pioneer human space exploration and we must maintain our dominance. This spirit must live on and should not die because of budget woes. We need a new J.F.K to challenge the American people to break the bonds of our home again, and move out into space for good with a permanent presence on the moon. The proximity of the Moon to Earth makes it a prime candidate for international politics, and I'd rather have the United States stake a claim then Japan or Russia.

The author claims we need to focus on Mars for our manned flights, but our astronauts cannot stay very long, because they are dependent on the supplies from Earth. We have so much to explore just to be able to gather resources on Mars. This needs to be practiced and perfected on the moon. There is water on the Moon just like Mars, so converting that into useful materials is a mutual challenge, one we must perfect before traveling to Mars. The Moon is also a logical supply station for Mars. We could store supplies there for years, so the crews are not limited to what cargo they bring with them. Also the moon gives us a testing bed for solar shields. We are protected for high energy particles from the sun because of the Earth's magnetosphere. The Moon just like Mars has no magnetosphere; therefore, its a comparable place to test particle shields.

The sub-claim to the author's main point of going to Mars is to develop technology to get astronauts there quicker. The problem I have with the claim is that research and development should coincide with space exploration. Limiting NASA's scope to just R&D is a waste of national talent. Jobs will be lost when the shuttle retires this year, and with no replacement program to fill that gap we will lose great minds. The Augustine Commission, which was set up by the President to give a recommendation for a national space policy concluded that NASA needs 3 billion dollars more to complete the Constellation program, which would send humans to the moon again. The commission recommended to allocate the funds to complete the program, yet the program was cut in mid-stride. We need to get our priorities straight as a nation and as a people. Space the final and now unexplored frontier. The author of A New Space Program claims we should scrap plans to go back to the Moon for a mission to Mars. I instead agree with President G.W. Bush who in 2005 decided to revisit the Moon by 2020, and to go to Mars by 2030 with the Constellation program. He stated, "with experience and knowledge gained on the Moon we will then be ready to take steps of space exploration: human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond." This was an ambitious plan that would serve our future generations well with new discoveries and insights. There is no future plans for a new American space craft. Now the gap between the retirement of the shuttle and a new heavy lift vehicle widens. We must now rely on Russia to send our astronauts up to the international space station. This new space program threatens our position as a space leader in the world, and leaves the door wide open for other countries to surpass us in knowledge and achievement. Don't let this happen to America, we must act now. Save manned space flight for our generation.