Is this kind of human space exploration still necessary?
NASA’s Artemis program plans to send astronauts back to the moon for the first time since 1972. Is this kind of human space exploration still necessary? Have you ever dreamed of becoming an astronaut or working for NASA?
In September, Eleanor Lutz wrote about NASA’s next human mission:
Since the final Apollo mission in 1972, the moon has been undisturbed by human footsteps. But that may soon change. NASA plans to send astronauts back to the moon this decade in a series of spaceflights called the Artemis program. The first planned launch is a test flight with no crew members aboard. NASA has postponed the flight twice so far, including on Saturday [Sept. 3], because of technical issues during the launch countdown, and will reschedule a third try soon. Eventually, though no earlier than 2025, NASA will send astronauts for a weeklong stay near the moon’s south pole. The crew will include the first woman and the first person of color to walk on the moon, NASA said.
That third try is slated to happen on Wednesday. What is your first impression of this mission? Are you excited by the thought of Americans returning to the moon? Are you skeptical or indifferent? Why?
In “NASA Is Returning to the Moon This Week. Why Do We Feel Conflicted?” Shannon Stirone, a space journalist, hosted a written online conversation with Leroy Chiao, a retired NASA astronaut; Lori Garver, a former deputy administrator of NASA; and David Grinspoon, an astrobiologist, about the big questions surrounding the Artemis launch. Here are some excerpts from their discussion:
Shannon Stirone: How’s everyone feeling about NASA returning to the moon after almost 50 years? Leroy, let’s start with you as the one who has been to space.
Leroy Chiao: I’m glad we’re finally going to launch this rocket (hopefully). It has been a long time, and a lot of money. Since I was inspired to become an astronaut by the Apollo moon missions, I would have loved a chance to go to the moon myself. But I have mixed feelings, though I hope that we have a successful mission. It is always exciting to see a new vehicle fly.
Ms. Garver adds:
Lori Garver: Like Leroy and David, I have very mixed feelings. I agree that sending humans to the moon again could offer meaningful benefits to the United States and society as a whole, but I don’t believe the way we are going about it is sustainable because we are using outdated and expensive single-use technologies. Apollo was a race, so doing it in that fashion was the right thing to do. We’ve now spent tens of billions of dollars and over a dozen years doing it again — just saying it is sustainable doesn’t make it so.
Stirone: True. We often tout human exploration as a marker of technological progress, but the truth is we don’t need to go back to the moon other than to demonstrate, as we did in the 1960s, that we can. Is human landing on the moon a mark of progress, or does scientific discovery matter more? What do we gain from humans on the moon?
Chiao: We have not sent people to the moon since 1972, so we don’t have the capability to do so immediately now. It is a bit of a “do-over,” but we have to relearn these things before we can go on to Mars, another NASA goal.
Grinspoon: There’s also a huge wealth of scientific knowledge to be gained by a return to the moon. There are really important, fundamental questions about the history of Earth, the history of life. There are wonderful investigations we can do there.
Mr. Grinspoon points out that, compared with human spaceflight, robotic missions “have always been much more science-driven and more efficient.” Ms. Stirone asks:
Stirone: To your point, the science potential on the moon is incredibly valuable. But shouldn’t we have spent all of the funds for the human mission on robotic science missions instead?
Grinspoon: Well, realistically we were never going to get equivalent funds to just do science with robots. Can you imagine if we did?
Stirone: I do! All the time.
Grinspoon: We could have orbiters around every planet in the solar system for a fraction of the cost of Artemis. But nobody gave us that option. In reality, the main reasons to send humans are other intangibles, some mentioned already, but also for inspiration and the human drive to explore, and reasons that I would even call spiritual. And as a scientist, I have to say, if we are going to go for these other reasons, then let’s be sure and set it up in such a way that we can do some great and important science while we’re there.
Garver: Going to and from space is expensive. Lowering the cost of space activities would allow us — whether it’s governments, consortiums, companies, etc. — to do more meaningful things in the domain.
Ms. Stirone continues: Stirone: Leroy, NASA says: “We’re going back to the moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration for a new generation of explorers: the Artemis Generation.” As someone who has been to space, do you think a crewed mission is required to inspire people to be interested in space exploration?
Chiao: It’s a balance. I’m a big supporter of robotic space missions as well as human ones. Humans relate to other humans doing the exploration. We have sent probes into the upper atmosphere, and down to the deepest depths of the oceans, and have made many discoveries. But, when the first humans climbed Everest, and when the first human — fairly recently — went down to the floor of the Mariana Trench, that’s when the public got interested.
So, yes, the science is exciting to many, but the human experience is usually exciting to all.
Students, read the entire article, then tell us: After learning more about the Artemis program and the panelists’ views on it, how do you feel about the mission? Do you think it is critical for “scientific discovery, economic benefits and inspiration for a new generation of explorers” as NASA has said? Or does it seem like a waste of time, money and resources?
The panelists offer several reasons human spaceflight is valuable — among them that it is inspirational to future explorers, that it’s a marker of geopolitical leadership, that it can give us information for a future Mars landing, that it is even a spiritual need. Which of the reasons mentioned in the article are most compelling to you? What else do you think can be gained from sending humans to space?
Several panelists noted that robotic missions were often more science-driven and efficient and less expensive than human missions. Do you think taxpayer money would be better spent on robotic missions, such as, for example, the recent James Webb telescope launch? Or do you think there is value in spending tens of billions of dollars to send humans to space, even if the mission is less science-driven and more expensive? How valuable do you think space exploration is in general? For example, one panelist brings up climate change. Should the government prioritize solving problems here on Earth? Or is space exploration and scientific discovery just as important? Why? The Artemis mission plans to include the first woman and first person of color to land on the moon. How important do you think these kinds of firsts are? What would these achievements mean to you? Ms. Stirone asks the panelists: “What are your biggest space science questions right now?” How would you answer that? What do you want to know about the universe and beyond?
In September, Eleanor Lutz wrote about NASA’s next human mission:
Since the final Apollo mission in 1972, the moon has been undisturbed by human footsteps. But that may soon change. NASA plans to send astronauts back to the moon this decade in a series of spaceflights called the Artemis program. The first planned launch is a test flight with no crew members aboard. NASA has postponed the flight twice so far, including on Saturday [Sept. 3], because of technical issues during the launch countdown, and will reschedule a third try soon. Eventually, though no earlier than 2025, NASA will send astronauts for a weeklong stay near the moon’s south pole. The crew will include the first woman and the first person of color to walk on the moon, NASA said.
That third try is slated to happen on Wednesday. What is your first impression of this mission? Are you excited by the thought of Americans returning to the moon? Are you skeptical or indifferent? Why?
In “NASA Is Returning to the Moon This Week. Why Do We Feel Conflicted?” Shannon Stirone, a space journalist, hosted a written online conversation with Leroy Chiao, a retired NASA astronaut; Lori Garver, a former deputy administrator of NASA; and David Grinspoon, an astrobiologist, about the big questions surrounding the Artemis launch. Here are some excerpts from their discussion:
Shannon Stirone: How’s everyone feeling about NASA returning to the moon after almost 50 years? Leroy, let’s start with you as the one who has been to space.
Leroy Chiao: I’m glad we’re finally going to launch this rocket (hopefully). It has been a long time, and a lot of money. Since I was inspired to become an astronaut by the Apollo moon missions, I would have loved a chance to go to the moon myself. But I have mixed feelings, though I hope that we have a successful mission. It is always exciting to see a new vehicle fly.
Ms. Garver adds:
Lori Garver: Like Leroy and David, I have very mixed feelings. I agree that sending humans to the moon again could offer meaningful benefits to the United States and society as a whole, but I don’t believe the way we are going about it is sustainable because we are using outdated and expensive single-use technologies. Apollo was a race, so doing it in that fashion was the right thing to do. We’ve now spent tens of billions of dollars and over a dozen years doing it again — just saying it is sustainable doesn’t make it so.
Stirone: True. We often tout human exploration as a marker of technological progress, but the truth is we don’t need to go back to the moon other than to demonstrate, as we did in the 1960s, that we can. Is human landing on the moon a mark of progress, or does scientific discovery matter more? What do we gain from humans on the moon?
Chiao: We have not sent people to the moon since 1972, so we don’t have the capability to do so immediately now. It is a bit of a “do-over,” but we have to relearn these things before we can go on to Mars, another NASA goal.
Grinspoon: There’s also a huge wealth of scientific knowledge to be gained by a return to the moon. There are really important, fundamental questions about the history of Earth, the history of life. There are wonderful investigations we can do there.
Mr. Grinspoon points out that, compared with human spaceflight, robotic missions “have always been much more science-driven and more efficient.” Ms. Stirone asks:
Stirone: To your point, the science potential on the moon is incredibly valuable. But shouldn’t we have spent all of the funds for the human mission on robotic science missions instead?
Grinspoon: Well, realistically we were never going to get equivalent funds to just do science with robots. Can you imagine if we did?
Stirone: I do! All the time.
Grinspoon: We could have orbiters around every planet in the solar system for a fraction of the cost of Artemis. But nobody gave us that option. In reality, the main reasons to send humans are other intangibles, some mentioned already, but also for inspiration and the human drive to explore, and reasons that I would even call spiritual. And as a scientist, I have to say, if we are going to go for these other reasons, then let’s be sure and set it up in such a way that we can do some great and important science while we’re there.
Garver: Going to and from space is expensive. Lowering the cost of space activities would allow us — whether it’s governments, consortiums, companies, etc. — to do more meaningful things in the domain.
Ms. Stirone continues: Stirone: Leroy, NASA says: “We’re going back to the moon for scientific discovery, economic benefits, and inspiration for a new generation of explorers: the Artemis Generation.” As someone who has been to space, do you think a crewed mission is required to inspire people to be interested in space exploration?
Chiao: It’s a balance. I’m a big supporter of robotic space missions as well as human ones. Humans relate to other humans doing the exploration. We have sent probes into the upper atmosphere, and down to the deepest depths of the oceans, and have made many discoveries. But, when the first humans climbed Everest, and when the first human — fairly recently — went down to the floor of the Mariana Trench, that’s when the public got interested.
So, yes, the science is exciting to many, but the human experience is usually exciting to all.
Students, read the entire article, then tell us: After learning more about the Artemis program and the panelists’ views on it, how do you feel about the mission? Do you think it is critical for “scientific discovery, economic benefits and inspiration for a new generation of explorers” as NASA has said? Or does it seem like a waste of time, money and resources?
The panelists offer several reasons human spaceflight is valuable — among them that it is inspirational to future explorers, that it’s a marker of geopolitical leadership, that it can give us information for a future Mars landing, that it is even a spiritual need. Which of the reasons mentioned in the article are most compelling to you? What else do you think can be gained from sending humans to space?
Several panelists noted that robotic missions were often more science-driven and efficient and less expensive than human missions. Do you think taxpayer money would be better spent on robotic missions, such as, for example, the recent James Webb telescope launch? Or do you think there is value in spending tens of billions of dollars to send humans to space, even if the mission is less science-driven and more expensive? How valuable do you think space exploration is in general? For example, one panelist brings up climate change. Should the government prioritize solving problems here on Earth? Or is space exploration and scientific discovery just as important? Why? The Artemis mission plans to include the first woman and first person of color to land on the moon. How important do you think these kinds of firsts are? What would these achievements mean to you? Ms. Stirone asks the panelists: “What are your biggest space science questions right now?” How would you answer that? What do you want to know about the universe and beyond?
