To the Moon
Published in NRC Handelsblad
(Netherlands) on 20 July 2009
by Editorial (link to original)
(Netherlands) on 20 July 2009
by Editorial (link to original)
Translated from
by Anne Hukkelhoven.
Edited by Christie Chu.
There are already enough anniversaries, but the first step astronaut Neil Armstrong set on the moon on July 20, 1969 is worth remembering. These days, American President Obama is considering whether and how the space shuttle program, which will end next year, should be continued. A renewed manned mission to the moon is the goal of the Constellation program, proposed by space agency NASA. Obama's predecessor Bush brought this forward five years ago. The current president is less enthusiastic so far. A special commission he appointed will advise him next month.
Space travel costs a lot money. For example, 100 billion dollars (more than 70 billion euro) will ultimately have been invested in the international space station ISS, once it is completed in a couple of years. The Apollo program, ordered by President Kennedy in 1961, rapidly dwindled at the beginning of the seventies, once the first steps on the moon had been taken. The idea that humanity would travel to other planets in the constellation forty years later turned out to be a fantasy. And that is what it will remain for now: the complexity of manned space travel is much larger than previously thought.
Why then to the moon yet again? The celestial body lends itself for many practical and scientific goals, from a telescope on the dark backside to communication stations, the harvest of materials, like helium-3, that are rare on earth and further research into the genesis of the solar system.
Many of those projects can be realized without manned space travel. Yet, manned space travel is a worthwile as a goal in itself. The moon can serve as an intermediate station for the next big goal, a manned flight to Mars, of which the benefit is also doubtful: Mars is scientifically very interesting, but why would man have to visit the planet personally? The costs are astronomical, the technical challenge is enormous.
But perhaps the question of benefit itself is not relevant here. Science is also about acquiring knowledge as a goal in itself. In a distant future, humanity will dare to take the jump to the planets and maybe further. The fundamentals for that trip will have to be laid at some point in time, so why not now?
There is an additional advantage. The costs will be phenomenal, and impossible to bear for one country, whether that is the current superpower, the United States, or the powers in the multi-polar world of tomorrow. Cooperation is the only way to realize such a large project. That is to be preferred far above a fragmented race. Moreover, Europe will be able to play a role.
But above all, it is about the challenge. A large dose of optimism is needed to dare to take the jump into space, but the adventure itself also generates the optimism and faith in progress. And that the planet can use very well in these times.
Space travel costs a lot money. For example, 100 billion dollars (more than 70 billion euro) will ultimately have been invested in the international space station ISS, once it is completed in a couple of years. The Apollo program, ordered by President Kennedy in 1961, rapidly dwindled at the beginning of the seventies, once the first steps on the moon had been taken. The idea that humanity would travel to other planets in the constellation forty years later turned out to be a fantasy. And that is what it will remain for now: the complexity of manned space travel is much larger than previously thought.
Why then to the moon yet again? The celestial body lends itself for many practical and scientific goals, from a telescope on the dark backside to communication stations, the harvest of materials, like helium-3, that are rare on earth and further research into the genesis of the solar system.
Many of those projects can be realized without manned space travel. Yet, manned space travel is a worthwile as a goal in itself. The moon can serve as an intermediate station for the next big goal, a manned flight to Mars, of which the benefit is also doubtful: Mars is scientifically very interesting, but why would man have to visit the planet personally? The costs are astronomical, the technical challenge is enormous.
But perhaps the question of benefit itself is not relevant here. Science is also about acquiring knowledge as a goal in itself. In a distant future, humanity will dare to take the jump to the planets and maybe further. The fundamentals for that trip will have to be laid at some point in time, so why not now?
There is an additional advantage. The costs will be phenomenal, and impossible to bear for one country, whether that is the current superpower, the United States, or the powers in the multi-polar world of tomorrow. Cooperation is the only way to realize such a large project. That is to be preferred far above a fragmented race. Moreover, Europe will be able to play a role.
But above all, it is about the challenge. A large dose of optimism is needed to dare to take the jump into space, but the adventure itself also generates the optimism and faith in progress. And that the planet can use very well in these times.
Previous article![]( "Obama is Right: Africa Must Take Responsability for Itself")
Next article![]( "Obama’s Beer Diplomacy")
