Searching for new challenges to the American spirit, the Bush Administration, some in Congress, many in NASA and scientific circles are considering whether humans should return to the moon. Politicians who favor it believe it would boost not only our spirit of purpose and destiny, but would produce untold benefits for US industry and the economy. Scientists who favor it believe the moon is the 'next logical step' if human space exploration is to proceed. Privately, I have argued all of those points for many years, having been deeply disappointed when the Nixon Administration concluded that the Apollo Lunar program should be abandoned permanently and prematurely in the early 70s.
Presenting an editorial is something new for this author and this web-site; I do not believe it is appropriate for a journalist to express his or her personal opinion while reporting. Commentators do that. But commentators work from their own body of experience, and the American space program has occupied my time for more than forty years; it is impossible to be intimately exposed to something for that long without forming an opinion that may be of some value to the average reader in reaching his/her own conclusion. So, here goes.
Richard Nixon abandoned the Apollo program primarily because of other, pressing issues like the Vietnam war, which was costing us dearly. Besides, he thought the space program had satisfied what he and other politicians felt was its primary goal: beating the Russians.
Science was a hitchhiker on Apollo. Of course, all lunar astronauts had scientific training for their missions, but only one true scientist went to the moon:
Jack Schmidt, a geologist who was on Apollo 17, the very last trip. We were only beginning..literally just scraping the surface..when the program was cancelled. Three of the mighty Saturn 5 rockets were left without work and now languish in museums.
It was a great shame.
Now, they're talking about going back and the same arguments that were made in the 60s and 70s are again on the carpet: it will cost too much, there are other things we ought to be doing before we do that..the same old stuff. But, when will there ever be a "right time?" I'm sure the same comments were heard in Queen Isabella's court when it was discovered that she had sponsored Columbus. Happily for us, she was the Queen and didn't have to listen if she didn't want to. Things are more complicated today.
What do you say? It will cost a lot of money but it won't be spent all at once and it will be spent in this country, in this economy. It will take years to do the job because the industry that built Apollo no longer exists and will have to be reconcocted using technologies we've developed since that time. Apollo, remember, was built from scratch from material provided by research done after World War 2. Since that time, we've learned quite a lot about flying in space and can now do it better. Neil Armstrong himself said they always thought it was a miracle that the Saturn 5 operated more or less normally every time it flew. Now, it's considered unusual when launch vehicles do not work perfectly. We've discussed the shuttle tragedies previously, and there's no need to rehash them here.
But, as the critics say, we've "been there and done that," so why go back? Because we "went there and barely did anything," that's why. We never pressed our advantage.
Just look at it: the moon is a rock solid, ready-made space station. It has both high and low temperature fields, a perfect vacuum, a modicum of gravity to help workers do their work efficiently. 
Astronomy could be done on the other side of the moon without interference from earth's light, radio signals or what have you. We don't know what resources the moon could provide because we've never explored it sufficiently. It could be a way-station or launch base for deeper exploration. If this country..or any other country..is ever to be interested in an expedition to Mars, the moon is the place to start. If you can develop a life-support system that will allow you to base permanently on the moon, plus an efficient transportation system to service that base, you will have learned so much that Mars will become the NEXT "logical step" by default. And remember, the moon is only three days away; Mars is a distance of months.
A lot of this has to do with political leadership, something the space program has not had since Nixon's decision to abandon the moon. Neither the White House nor the Congress has had the courage to do anything more than sanction the status quo. The shuttle's a great machine and the space station is impressive but if you want to say "been there, done that," that's where you should say it. Maybe that's why we're now churning out more lawyers in this country than engineers. You are not going to inspire today's children with more orbital flight. But if you promise me the moon, I will tell you to finish up the space station and get it over with so we can turn and start the outward journey.
Right now, we do not have the launch vehicles to take us back to the moon. The Saturn 5 is an obsolete technology, so we'll have to develop new rockets and new engines if we hope to vault humans into translunar space once more. Engineers, scientists and the military have been complaining about our lack of "heavy-lift" capability for years. Congress has been a polite listener, but not very forthcoming. That's where you start..and it needs to be done anyway, no matter what the goal.
If we're really going to explore, the moon is the first place to go.
It's important to us as a nation.
Other countries are already considering the possibility.
Let's do it.
