“The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars.” – Carl Sagan
To minimize existential threats that could lead to the destruction of all of humanity, humans must eventually leave the planet that has nurtured us. While the search for exosolar “New Earths” continues, near future technology could enable us to comfortably colonize bodies in our solar system, including Earth’s moon, Mars, Titan, and even large objects in the Kuiper Belt.
To date, mankind’s most notable achievement in space travel has been NASA’s Apollo program, which successfully put humans on the Moon. The last successful landing took place in 1972, nearly four decades ago. We haven’t been back since.
While going to the Moon benefited the United States in the Cold War, it was phenomenally expensive. That much hasn’t changed in the last 37 years, even though technology has. We’ve put robots on Mars, discovered water ice on the Moon, have glimpsed far-off galaxies with Hubble. While these developments are terrific and have enabled humans to learn a great deal about the universe, there’s still a need for humans to actually set foot on the Moon if we’re going to set up a long-term human presence there.
In 2003, President Bush announced plans for the United States to return to the Moon in 2020. Today, President Obama proposed cancelling this mission:
In place of the Moon mission, Mr. Obama’s vision offers, at least initially, nothing in terms of human exploration of the solar system. What the administration calls a “bold new initiative” does not spell out a next destination or timetable for getting there.
In the meantime, instead of using the Constellation’s Ares I rocket and Orion crew capsule to ferry astronauts to the International Space Station, $6 billion would instead go to financing space taxi services from commercial companies.
At first, this announcement may spur disappointment in those who, like me, believe manned space travel is important for the future of humanity. However, there is a very positive side to this development – it opens the way for commercial space transport, which is a very good thing, as Rand Simberg notes:
What the administration is doing finally ending the model of the government having a state socialist design bureau to build a monopoly transportation system for its own use, at tremendous cost, which is politically supportable because of all the pork it provides to Alabama, Florida, and Texas. It proposes to expand the COTS program to provision of crew changeout in addition to cargo delivery, encouraging competition, and providing a robust capability that won’t put us out of business when the government rocket fails, as has happened twice with the Shuttle in the past quarter century, for almost three years each time. Instead of a program projected to cost many tens of billions over the next decade for a NASA-owned-and-operated new rocket (Ares I) that will cost billions per flight of four astronauts, it is going to invest 6 billion dollars in developing private capability, with multiple competitors, and do it on a fixed-price, pay-for-performance basis, rather than the wasteful cost-plus model that inevitably results in overruns due to the perverse incentives.
Despite the amazing things NASA has done, the free market is positioned to come up with innovative solutions for space travel that NASA hasn’t explored. Rather than remaining our principal means of leaving the Earth, NASA can help develop the infrastructure that will enable private companies to thrive. To get to the Moon, however, governments must allow companies to exploit the Moon’s natural resources for profit, whether that means shuttling well-heeled tourists back and forth or setting up long-term helium-3 mining operations. While government programs will have a place in outer space, the next space travel milestones belong to private companies.