“We choose to go to the moon in this decade (the 1960s) 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.”
— John F. Kennedy
The Moon: Just a Phase?
In the late 60s, a quarter of the world’s population watched as American astronauts sent back images of the Earth from the moon’s orbit.
About a fifth of the world looked on as President Kennedy’s vision was fulfilled when Neil Armstrong walked on the surface of the moon and returned home.
It was an exciting time and optimism was abundant.
We had won the space race.
Then we lost interest.
The reasons I always hear about why we quit going to the Moon are general apathy and a sense that the money could be better spent on Earth itself.
The last Apollo Mission was launched December 7, 1972.
Shuttling Along
The phrase, “If we can put a man on the Moon, why can’t we ____________?” (“cure the common cold” or “send them all there” were some of the blank fillers used) was about the extent of our space program for the better part of the 70’s.
Sure, we had Skylab.
Anyone else remember that doomed space habitat?
It was a faulty space laboratory from the start, not really part of a larger exploratory program and only saw three missions sent to it.
While space-based experiments have given us some modern conveniences, the lab, which fell back to Earth in 1979, seemed a yawn for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
That decade was a wasted opportunity if you ask me.
Shuttling Along
It wasn’t until we began the space shuttle program that America got back into space—and even then we’re just talking orbital missions.
Did the alien overlords say we couldn’t leave orbit or something?
America got really good at sending up and fixing satellites for a while.
I can’t complain too much about that because I like my satellite TV and radio.
But still …
Every time we launched a shuttle we could have boosted the large external fuel tank (remember that huge orange piece strapped to the bottom of the shuttle between the two boosters?) into orbit. There were 135 shuttle missions launched. That would have been the start to a huge space station.
We didn’t do that … and I still don’t understand why.
The ISS
The International Space Station (ISS) is a combined effort of several nations including America, Russia, Japan, Canada and Europe (under the auspices of the European Space Agency).
As I type “ISS,” I wonder why you would name a space station with an acronym that sounds like escaping air.
I applaud the spirit of international cooperation and the ISS has performed just a ton of experiments in its 17 years of continually manned operations.
But it is not a hub for further space exploration or colonization.
NASA Takes Several Steps Back
The various shuttles, aside from satellite deployment and repair, used to visit and supply the ISS.
Then on July 21, 2011 the space shuttle Atlantis was launched in what was the last of the shuttle missions.
The remaining three of five shuttles were retired and made into museum pieces leaving America with no vehicles capable of manned launch.
America began using Russian Soyuz spacecraft to take our astronauts to space.
I have often wondered why we didn’t launch the three remaining shuttles and leave two of them docked at the ISS.
I compare the shuttles to old trucks. You don’t just abandon your old beater just because it’s old. You either replace it or fix it. You still need transportation … and we would have had two “space trucks” permanently in orbit.
Crashing Down
The ISS itself is scheduled to be abandoned in 2024 (possibly delayed to 2028) and will be deorbited into a fiery meeting with the Pacific ocean.
Why?
You shouldn’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars sending equipment into space only to crash it into your own planet later.
Fill it with radio equipment and make it a communications satellite.
Leave it up there as a “life raft” in case of a space emergency.
Sell it to the highest bidder.
Something.
Why not shove it into lunar orbit and make it a stop on our way to a Moon base?
If we had two shuttles up there to push it, the job might be a little easier—and the shuttles could actually shuttle between Earth and it’s natural satellite.
It’s kind of a moot point now though what with kids putting their used chewing gum under the museum piece’s dashboards.
Free Enterprise
to the Rescue?
I saw a 2011 article that said a Russian company would have a hotel in space by 2016.
That obviously didn’t happen.
I seem to have read (though I can’t find it now) that large hotel chains have looked into the feasibility of hotels in space.
According to National Geographic, a Houston-based startup named Orion Span plans to send the first-ever luxury hotel into orbit in 2021.
Your projected cost for a 9-day stay? $9.5 million per person.
Ouch.
Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said in 2016 that his company would beat Elon Musk and his company, SpaceEx, in the race to put people on Mars.
So the new space race is commercial.
Hmm … that seems a little chaotic.
NASA should be a guiding hand and the people with a cohesive plan.
Is there a plan?
I don’t get why we do not already have a Moon base.
Mankind made it there 50 years ago and hasn’t really even stopped by for a proper visit since.
The Moon is a logical starting place for a Mars mission.
Your cell phone has more computing power than the Apollo capsules.
We have the know-how and we should have the pieces in place.
We just need President Kennedy’s passion again.
Reader Comments(0)