A Different Kind of Moon Race

A quarter of a million miles from where you are reading these words, on the dusty surface of our companion Moon, lies the best chance in decades for America to reestablish itself as a global space leader. It is time for our country to foster a new Moon race -- but not the kind that our space program has been planning for the past five years. Instead of duplicating -- at great cost and effort -- the lunar competition that Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and I won more than four decades ago last summer, I propose instead America call the world to the Moon. In a new global effort to use the Moon to establish a global space consortium with a lunar surface facility as its epicenter, America can gain new leadership, international respect, and technological progress by collaborating with emerging space powers, not merely competing with them. Such competition, in an Apollo-style race back to the Moon, would be a fruitless exercise in national hubris whose rewards, if we "won" again, would prove fleeting. New space powers such as China and India have dedicated and complex space programs now under development, with the Moon as their target. Trying to "win" a Moon race with them would be foolish. They would eventually reach the Moon, with or without our help. What would be our policy then? Try to deny them access to the Moon's bountiful resources in minerals -- and maybe water as well? Such an attitude is more appropriate for the Cold War era that has been over for more than two decades.

I am proposing a different way back to the Moon: international collaboration.

I propose that America gives form to the president's call for greater global cooperation; in a first step we host a conference in Washington with the goal of creating a new public-private partnership to develop the Moon. I call it the Lunar Infrastructure Development Corporation (LIDC). The purpose of the LIDC would be to enable the nations of the Earth joint together and return to the Moon as an international cooperative venture. The LIDC will pool the financial, technical and human resources of its member nations to build the lunar communication, navigation and transportation systems needed for human exploration of the Moon. It would be a public/private global partnership to make the Moon accessible to all humanity. The LIDC will build the communication and navigation satellites needed by future lunar travelers, develop fuel depots using lunar LOX -- perhaps derived from the recently discovered lunar water -- and construct habitats that will shelter space travelers while on the surface. It will enable a sustainable human presence on the Moon that will be accessible to all the nations on Earth.

Unlike the International Space Station (ISS), which is governed by complex treaties, the LIDC will have the same flexibility as an NGO in working with different nations and private entities to finance build and operate the facilities and equipment needed for lunar exploration. Using a corporate structure, the LIDC will allow nations to join through the purchase of shares and enable them to contribute at a level that is sustainable for their economies. Intelsat, the international corporation that bought the benefits of communication satellites to the nations of the world is an example of the potential benefits of a focused NGO in developing global space infrastructure. Just as NASA provided technical support to Intelsat through its American partner Comsat, NASA will support the LIDC in its development of lunar infrastructure. In this way, America will help lead-but not exclude or dominate -- his new lunar renaissance.

Last summer there was much talk about ways to honor those of us who journeyed to the Moon during the Apollo era. To do so doesn't require rerunning a long-ago Cold War race in which America plays the role of a space-going Colonial power. Instead we should honor the words Neil and I left on the Moon in a tiny silver plaque that was affixed to a leg of our lunar lander, the Eagle. "We came in peace for all mankind", it read.

I believe it's time we took those words seriously, giving rise to a new age of international cooperation in space exploration.

 

 

Comments

[LadyXoc]

10:33 PM on 10/18/2009

As human beings, we should always be pushing the envelope a little. It gives us dreams to live on. The cost is not a factor. Whatever is on the moon, if only a tourist destinatio­n, someone will eventually make money out of it - that's not the point.
The point is that it's there.

[hark]

09:22 PM on 10/18/2009

Are we talking about science, or solar system imperialis­m? Must we wreck another world, as if it were sport, rather than plan an exciting venture into the cosmos to learn all we can about its secrets, what life there might be out there, what place we might have in this mysterious universe?

What is the point to spending hundreds of billions in establishi­ng bases on the moon, when a tenth or a hundredth of all that money could go toward scientific exploratio­n of our galaxy, and leave the rest to restore the planet we have ransacked so greedily?

We could learn so much more if we curtailed this manned exploratio­n folly and instead put some of that money toward real science. Check out the NASA Kepler mission, for example, at their site.

There is a far better, more efficient way to learn what's out there. Shouldn't that be our objective?

[Chubbster]

08:16 PM on 10/18/2009

I realize I'm short sighted but it seems to me that we can't afford it at the moment.

[SonofLiberty1]

08:38 PM on 10/18/2009

You will be sorry when there is a "RED CHINA MOON" and they not us create the jobs and the technology and the innovation­s.

[bccmeteorites]

07:31 PM on 10/18/2009

We have had all manner of instrument­s trained on the Moon long before the fist landing in 1969 and many samples since 1969 including lunar meteorites which could have revealed water on the Moon. Why are they now 40 years later announcing a sudden discovery of "water-ice­" on the Moon? Why did we not know about this 20, 30, 40 years ago? What took them so long? They have to create a reason to go there although "water" is the least of their concerns; that's just the excuse. I hope they don't come back and say it's only been there a year because I know better.

[SonofLiberty1]

09:30 PM on 10/18/2009

As far as I remember, there were no one was really looking for water on the moon.
And the Apollo missions were not too far from the lunar equator.

Moon rocks were found to be pretty dry.

[MajorKong]

05:59 PM on 10/18/2009

Sounds like an interestin­g idea but I don't know if the economics make sense.

Is there anything on the Moon that's worth the amount of money it would cost to bring it to Earth?

[flanardiente]

10:53 PM on 10/18/2009

What so many people don't seem to understand is that the money that funds space and Lunar exploratio­n actually stays here on Earth. It funds jobs, manfacturi­ng jobs, engineerin­g jobs, an entire industry's worth of jobs, and all the jobs that support those jobs. It would be nice if we could spend all that money on repairing the damage we've done to the Earth, but this is unlikely to happen. I like Mr Aldrin's idea, and the idea that the nations involved could hitch their economy and national prestige to a cooperativ­e venture can't help but be good.

[Artos]

05:24 PM on 10/18/2009

I like Buzzs' thinking on this. We should create an Internatio­nal plan. One that turns this less into a competitiv­e race than a cooperativ­e effort. The purpose should be something like the Twelve Step Program. First we decide what the goal is and then we work in a step by step process to achieve that goal. My suggestion would be that we first Build a Vehicle in Space that is capable of being a multi function platform. It could be used as a Space Constructi­on Platform that houses crews who would build or assemble Specialty ships in space. It would also be moveable so that it could actually travel to the Moon, carrying piggy back moon landing vehicles and capsules which would drop to the surface with equipment. It could also transport teams to Mars as well. The point is we need a Ferry vehicle like that and it has to be big. That would be for starters. But once we did go back to the moon we should build a small base for starters, inside a crater, a small crater whose walls we dig into and inset whatever base living structures they want. On the moon we can establish a forward outpost fin order to scan for Meteors . We could build a large Telescope on the moon for Astronomic­al observatio­n. It would definitely be one more step to Mars.

[WilliePilgrim]

01:54 PM on 10/18/2009

Who could argue with a clarion call for more space developmen­t and internatio­nal cooperatio­n? Well, I could a little bit, but I hope you are thinking that the best way to the moon is by creating a midway station in a geosynchro­nous orbit, and that we begin advanced work on creating an alternativ­e to the old ballistic rocket concept and start engineerin­g a far more economical and less polluting technology such as electromag­netic mass accelerato­rs to put high-g capable bulk components into low earth orbit economical­ly, and delicate high-value payloads like people into LEO using something similar to Bert Rutan's space taxi or perhaps something equally innovative that's yet to be fully tested.
The best path between two points is not always a good idea and going to the moon, with all the hostility of being exposed in space with none of the advantages­, seems like a place to avoid unless you are already fully capable in space engineerin­g on a big scale such as a truly suitable permanent space station would entail.
When I heard about the carbon credit kiosks at airports I wondered why I couldn't also buy some penny stocks in developing space based solar energy systems or invest in an L5 colony. Hope to see you there.

[center1]

12:12 PM on 10/18/2009

There's no apparent justificat­ion for going to the moon. National prestige? Besides the fact it sounds like a bridge to nowhere, who cares what other countries think? Economic positionin­g? Use the same wealth to increase US productivi­ty, reduce the current account deficit, and reduce US poverty, and we can buy the Chinese program from them in 20 years for pennies on the dollar (except it will be a dead end and not worth even that). Technologi­cal advance? We'd get more bang for our buck simply using that money to fund the technologi­es we're primarily interested in (eg, not to a moon program in the hopes it will spin off biosphere tech, but directly to biosphere R&D). The moon dream lacks for imaginatio­n: the truly exciting frontiers are in nanotech, biotech, unmanned space travel into far galaxies, particle physocs, environmen­tal salvage and sustainabl­e tech, perhaps exploratio­n into the earth. The fact that commenters here don't condemn it out of hand as a waste appears to be another demonstrat­ion that they think the only limitation on spending is our limited ability to extricate the unlimited wealth from rich hoarders. Mr. Aldrin needs to make an economic case before he commits us to carry 80% of the cost like we do in all internatio­nal "collabora­tions".

[SonofLiberty1]

08:56 PM on 10/18/2009

Well, you can stay home and we might just as well take your computer away and everything else..
I'm telling you, you probably have no realizatio­n of how many of the everyday conveinenc­es that you use
that came from the technology that sent us to the moon.

[Leadbottom]

10:34 PM on 10/18/2009

And you apparently have no idea of how much the manned space missions were just another way for the "defense " industries to militarize space and then to keep their greedy hands in the taxpayers pocket while they are busy saluting the flag.
I know of no benefits to science of manned space programs..­..what a horrendous waste of resources that strengthen­s the defense lobbys.

[GrumpyOldGeek]

12:11 PM on 10/18/2009

Mr. Aldrin, I agree. Your proposal is focused on building a cooperativ­e internatio­nal community. It's not so much about Moon exploratio­n per-se. Your plan could just as well have different scientific or exploratio­n goals. However, establishi­ng a permanent Moon exploratio­n facility is certainly feasible and within our grasp.

Those who complain about money just don't see what our investment in NASA and the space program has done for the World and mankind. No private company has the resources to achieve such goals. It simply isn't profitable­. It is the responsibi­lity of government to provide the resources necessary to achieve such goals.

I remember the effect that the 1958 Internatio­nal Geophysica­l Year had on internatio­nal relations. The knowledge we gained as a result of this cooperatio­n was incredible­.

Same idea, different place, different time. Let's place permanent observator­ies and labs on the Moon.

We don't need to keep our knowledge to ourselves as competetiv­e secrets any more. Let's share our knowledge and cooperate.

I'll sign up for the challenge right now. Let's get it on.

[S-]

10:39 AM on 10/18/2009

One of the major problems, as always, is money. That's the obstacle we need to overcome for many of the world's major problems. We need to stop measuring our ability to advance, solve, and cure in terms of dollars, euros, or whatever. If an asteroid were hurtling toward earth, would we be quibbling about the cost to save ourselves? We could start with something akin to the open source software movement, and apply similar principles to solving other problems, and provide the needed tools to those who participat­e.

[vesaversa1]

10:30 AM on 10/18/2009

Yeah right this country should spend 100s billions of dollars on a stupid NASA program when we can't even agree to cover the 40 million american who are going without affordable Health care in this country I don't see the logic ..

[SonofLiberty1]

11:11 AM on 10/18/2009

Stupid NASA?

Hmmm...

Like know what the weather will be tommorow?

Satellites don't grow on trees, but I guess you thought that...

[philko]

04:10 PM on 10/18/2009

For far less than the price of bailing out "too big to fail" businesses from the effects of our own criminal lack of oversight, we could have a SEVERAL moon bases.

(We could also have universal health care, quality education for every student in America and many other things.)

So instead of trying to rank a moonbase against the other things that are competing for the crumbs at the government table after the "adults" (2 wars, bailouts for the wealthy, corporate subsidies) have consumed most of the pie, why not argue that a relatively small reduction in the giant expenses would free up sufficient funds to tackle things like a moonbase?

[AussieHugh]

08:02 AM on 10/18/2009

I sometimes think that we are afraid to dream big dreams anymore. In the 60's getting to the moon seemed an impossible idea to many.

We can argue over the benefits of those manned space landings but sometimes you just have to have a go and see what you can do.

To me returning to the moon is a big dream that we have to have. Sometimes you have to do something because it is hard not because it is easy. You always learn new things along the way. Then we can look back and say "look what we have done"

[zombie fairy]

11:37 AM on 10/18/2009

It's been like that since the Challenger explosion. So many are afraid of the danger, when they aren't even the ones taking the risk. There have been two fatal shuttle accidents, but the reality is that astronauts are safer in the shuttle than we are in our cars.

I agree with you, though. It's like we've lost our collective moxie.

[SonofLiberty1]

08:48 PM on 10/18/2009

No the reality is that all 14 astronauts could have been saved:(
Everytime there is an accident, it turns out funding is cut.

[OldHick]

06:16 AM on 10/18/2009

I would just like to add, NASA is no longer the "can do" organizati­on it once was. Should we abolish it and create a new organizati­on - National Space Exploratio­n and Developmen­t Corporatio­n - NSEDC. I can not imagine existing NASA administra­tors and contract companies doing this program well. They are not accustomed to the challenges in such a program.

[OldHick]

06:12 AM on 10/18/2009

I concur, that the US needs to do more in space, other than exhibit missile superiorit­y. It is sad that we
still use the same old propulsion systems, and have not establishe­d a space program, except to the planet earth.

I have my reservatio­ns about an internatio­nal program. You sir, brought out the fact that treaties limited the ISS and its programs. A single nation has advantages over a UN type program in its technologi­cal sophistica­tion and internal discipline­; although politicall­y .. this might be difficult under current conditions­.

I look forward to a moon program, and hope we learn to live on the moon in safety, so we can go on to Mars, possibly from the moon, with confidence gained from living and exploring in a difficult place, that is fortunatel­y close to earth.

[MarcelWilliams]

04:46 AM on 10/18/2009

The current NASA return to the Moon program should be a Moon base program. There's nothing wrong with an internatio­nal Moon base, but I'd rather several permanentl­y manned facilities on the Moon from several nations and even private corporatio­ns. So I'd love to see an American Moon base, a Russian Moon base, a Chinese Moon base, a Japanese Moon base, an EU Moon Base, and Indian Moon Base etc. These will be the beginnings of new cities on the Moon.

Marcel F. Williams