1 Chris Young Professor Art Lindenberg English 102 August 17, 2009 Space: The Final Frontier In 1962, President John F. Kennedy gave a speech at Rice University in Houston, Texas. In it, he set a lofty goal: 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, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. This goal was met on July 20, 1969, when the Apollo 11 lunar module landed on the Moon, and astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked out onto its surface. Over the next few years, NASA performed five more lunar landings, the last being on December 11, 1972. Since then, there have been no further landings on the moon. The future potential of human expansion is ever-widening, and we must soon return to the moon if our increasing need for resources and information is to be met. One common opposition to the space program is commonly phrased something like this: “Why should we keep spending money up there, rather than down here where we need it?” Questions like this show that the public doesn't know of the advancements in technology that NASA has brought us. There is far too great an amount to be listed here, but I will touch on some examples: fire resistant fabric, smoke detectors, water purification systems, cordless power tools,

2 nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), the joystick controller, and the artificial heart all have their roots in NASA developments.1

2

There is a plethora of further information available on the

Internet about such benefits of the space program. There will be those that acknowledge the usefulness of the space program, but still question the need to travel to the Moon, specifically. “Why not go right on to Mars? We've already been on the Moon,” one might say. And I say, if we do not attempt to stay on the Moon for an extended period, how would we know when we are ready for Mars? As Guy Gugliotta wrote in Discover in 2007, “Moon astronauts will be three days from help, and Mars astronauts will, at best, be months away—virtually alone after liftoff. . . . screwups are better handled closer to home.” Also, it is to be noted that a moon base liftoff would be much easier than a terrestrial one. And why should we travel to Mars? For the first reason, I will quote Stephen Hawking: “I don't think the human race will survive the next thousand years, unless we spread into space. There are too many accidents that can befall life on a single planet. But I'm an optimist. We will reach out to the stars.” Hawking puts forward that the survival of our species depends on space travel. For example, if a virus destroys human life on Earth by the time we have a permanent colony on Mars, humans will have a much better chance of survival. And let's not forget: travel across the sea was once deemed far too treacherous to risk attempting. If we hadn't, the world's society as we know it would certainly not exist today. Another reason to travel to the moon is to gather more information about our universe.

1

NASA Spinoffs Fact Sheet, nasa.gov.

2

Inventions from Space, nasa.gov.

3 We can create liquid-mirror telescopes on the Moon's south pole to see extraordinarily far, and radio telescopes on the far side of the moon away from any interference of Earth-based signals. Such developments would be of great help to scientific discovery (Cowen, 184-5). As far as resources go, the Moon is believed to be abundant in Helium-3, a mineral that is rare on Earth and is expected to be a great source of energy, and possibly used for nuclear fusion. China's moon exploration project recently collected a large amount of data about the makeup of the lunar soil. The project's chief scientist, Ouyang Ziyuan, had this to say to China Daily: Since the fossil energy on Earth might be exhausted in a century or less, we have to find an alternative energy source. Nuclear fusion would be an important option. There is an abundance of helium-3, perhaps millions of tons on the moon, which could be used to generate energy once the technology matures. The moon might fundamentally change the pattern of energy generation for humans. Colonizing the Moon of course presents many challenges: moon dust (regolith) that wore on the Apollo space suits and machinery, cosmic radiation due to the lack of atmosphere, sources of oxygen, medical treatment (coupled with the still relatively unknown effects of low gravity on the human body), the lack of Earth materials for use in building and repairs, extreme temperatures, and the difficulty of travel across the lunar landscape. This makes the cause sound hopeless, doesn't it? However, possible solutions have already been devised for many, if not all, of these problems. For example, the lunar soil itself can be easily melted down with microwaves (not microwave ovens) to form roads and building materials, and if in a thick enough layer, can provide protection from the radiation. A base could be built at the south pole where temperatures are more moderate. Solar panels and hydrogen fuel cells would provide electricity, which would be used for such things as extracting oxygen from the regolith. (Gugliotta, 19-23)

4 Another challenge to the next lunar landing is politics. Specifically, NASA's budget and timeline. According to a recent report by the Human Space Flight Plans committee, a presidential review panel, the plan to return to the moon by 2020 wouldn't happen without a significant budget increase. If the review panel's advice is heeded, that NASA's budget does not allow for travel to the Moon, it is likely that the United States will soon lose its place as leaders of the space race—the race that will continue on, whether we choose to participate fully or not. The timeline has already been affected: robotic missions to the moon were planned to begin in 2008, but were canceled (Cowen, 184). I put forward that the benefits of space travel greatly outweigh the costs, and the review panel would do well to remember the words of Kennedy: To be sure, all this costs us a good deal of money. . . . even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not know what benefits await us. But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control center in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall . . . to an unknown celestial body . . . and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out—then we must be bold. . . . Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moons and planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing upon the most hazardous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

5 Works Cited Cowen, Ron. “Ticket to Ride? Astrophysicists Mull a Return to the Moon.” Science News 171.12 (2007): 184-185. Gugliotta, Guy. “Can We Survive on the Moon?” The Next Space Age. Ed. Christopher Mari. New York: The Reference Shelf, 2008. “Inventions from Space.” NASA.gov. 8 September 2005 . Kennedy, John F. “We choose to go to the Moon...” History Place. “Moon may light man's future.” China Daily. 15 August 2009 “NASA Spinoffs Fact Sheet.” NASA.gov. 24 February 2008 .