From PCC(E): After watching the explosion of Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin rocket last week, a rocket that is designed to help create the first human colony on the Moon, I thought to myself, “What is all this mishigass? Why do we need a human colony on the Moon? What will it tell us that unmanned exploration using drones or robotic vehicles won’t?” I couldn’t think of any answers, but I beefed about this to my friend (and reader) Jim “Bat” Batterson, who used to work for NASA. I was surprised that he pretty much agreed with me, and wrote an email to that effect. I asked him if he could turn the email into a short post, and he gladly assented. So here’s Bat’s take on space missions (indented):
Before Trump’s election and, really, its Project 2025 budgetary guidance, NASA spent roughly equal amounts on “human spaceflight” (also called “human exploration”) and “science”. In the NASA budget, “science” is a category that includes basic/fundamental science —mostly via grants to universities and institutes in the sub-areas of planetary science, like heliophysics, astrophysics, and earth/atmospheric science. The areas within “science” are prioritized by “decadal” committees of experts who, every ten years, assess the possible knowledge that NASA could help create. These needs can be very expensive, requiring the engineering of entirely new spacecraft and instrumentation needing long timelines and large teams of unique technical expertise (think space telescopes, planetary landers, comet or asteroid fly-bys).
Human Exploration, on the other hand, deals with all endeavors in which humans go into space in rockets, capsules, and space stations. The Mars Rover, for example, counts as “Science” and not “Human Exploration” because humans aren’t involved.
Until this past year. Human Exploration and Science were each budgeted at about $8 billion yearly with an additional $3 billion in human spaceflight operations such as running the International Space Station.
Last year, the administration’s (i.e., the President’s) budget recommended cutting Science by about 50%(!), and raising Human Exploration by $1 billion. Congress rejected that and kept the budget as it was. The same attempt to cut the budget was made this year, and Congress again rejected it.
The lunar moon base or colony, as well as the Mars colonization form of mental masturbation, both fit under the exploration and human spaceflight operations budget. Space telescopes, robotic missions to the planets and asteroids, earth-observing satellites and the like are generally counted in the “Science” portion of NASA’s budget. Even if Congress again restores the full Science budget, the chaos and uncertainty brought on these multi-year efforts can easily erode NASA if talented engineers and scientists seek more stable work to support their families.
I fully agree that there is no “science” in human colonization of the Moon as opposed to using robotic rovers; and the addition of humans to the mix entails not only danger to human lives, but much extra expense. The significant science that comes out of human exploration of space is limited to understanding the complexities of humans living and working in space. The only justification I see for a lunar base is the same as that given for the “first man in space” competition with Russia in the 1960’s: the claim of “soft” military/international presence IF another country such as China plants their flag along with a human colony. Adjusted for inflation, the NASA budget of the early 1960’s was three times that of today’s budgets, reflecting the more serious devotion to putting humans on the Moon in the Sixties. You can see a good budget summary from planetary society at this link.
By the way, using Department-of-Defense comparisons, I like to think in terms of how many aircraft0-carrier-equivalents aspects of the NASA budget represent. A new aircraft carrier these days costs around $13 billion +/- out the door. So the cost of the of NASA Human Exploration program is on the order of a new aircraft carrier each year.
So, dear readers, both Bat and I agree that we’re wasting a lot of dough (our dough) trying to put human colonies on the Moon and on Mars. It is a performative gesture with no real scientific benefits, and only tiny and unforseeable military benefits. That money could well be used to alleviate human problems right here on Earth.
If you have any questions about this, put them in the comments and Bat will be glad to answer them.
Here from Wikipedia is a “NASA concept art of an envisioned lunar mining facility” and, below that, an “Inflatable module for lunar base”.
We should have a self sustaining colony on Mars so all our eggs are not in one basket. The argument “we could help more on Earth” is naïve. The problems that can be solved by money have been solved. The big problems are caused by bad government, and human greed for power and wealth.
Colonizing Mars will be easy compared to getting a colony in another solar system.
Thanks for calling my arguments “naive.” And you seem to think that colonizing Mars will fix some of our problems. It will be hideously expensive and provide no scientific benefits that a robot couldn’t provide.
“All our eggs are not in one basket”? Do you mean in case everyone on Earth is destroyed?
I have to reluctantly agree. Even though sending probes and robots is very exciting (and valuable science, of course), I have to admit that sending humans out is even more exciting, though generally less valuable for science. Artemis II had me riveted.
I have a question about long term colonizing on the Moon, and even short-term visitation on Mars. Isn’t it the case that either of these will cause significant health problems and likely early death because of radiation? Being out beyond our magnetic field is tolerable for a short visit to the Moon, those missions would be near suicide if done in the long term.
You really, really, need to read this book if you’re at all interested in the topic. Here is a link to my review. http://www.astro.multivax.de:8000/helbig/research/publications/info/a_city_on_mars.html
Read the book. Independently of that: Is it the best way to spend money for science? No. Is it worth it “because it’s there”? I think so. Consider the fact that Elon is doing it mostly with his own money. Don’t do it because the money is better spent here? “Holy false dichotomy Batman!” Could it ensure the long-term survival of humanity? Maybe.
They’d have to live underground with a few meters of earth (err, “moon” or “mars”) above them for shielding.
PCC(E) : “we’re wasting a lot of dough (our dough) trying to put human colonies on the Moon and on Mars.”
True.
(Using the Common Sense meaning of “our dough”, as in, money taken from United States’ citizens, businesses, etc. by the government.)
It’s a clear case of justification by intended result rather than demonstrated result.
I am a semi-regular reader of Science Magazine- good toilet fodder. I have seen many articles on unmanned probe results, and cannot remember a single Science paper derived from a manned mission. Pretty simple metric, but also pretty telling.
As for the arguements
“We should have a self sustaining colony on Mars so all our eggs are not in one basket. The argument “we could help more on Earth” is naïve. The problems that can be solved by money have been solved. The big problems are caused by bad government, and human greed for power and wealth”
any colony on mars will be far more fragile than the one already on Earth, and there is absolutely no reason to think that bad government, human greed, power and wealth will not corrupt another planed inhabited by the same species, managed and funded by the same overseers.
It’s definitely expensive, and the science we gain may be no greater than that we might gain robotically. All that is true. But I—for some primal reason that’s hard to explain—would love to see human beings set up a colony on the Moon and, especially, walk on Mars. I won’t be one of those pioneers, but someone probably will, and I can try to imagine the sensations he or she might experience as they step onto our most Earth-like planetary neighbor.
If we could get past the cost and risk, it’s that rush of exuberance that would be worth it, and the realization that we’ve achieved something close to impossible.
How many billions of taxpayer dollars is your “rush of exuberance” worth?
Just a quick note/clarification for me: i do not necessarily think the dosh better spent on human problems here on Earth, but do think it might be better spent in the NASA areas that were cut such as Science, STEM Ed (bringing 21century STEM needs and realities into curriculum via teacher training and student immersion), and Aeronautics (the first “A” of NASA). The current NASA budget is pretty opaque even to the veteran analysts from the Planetary Society and AAAS it seems. If the U.S. is serious about a lunar colony, it needs to show it with more than artists’ renditions and tying commercial development of space transportation in with such a difficult and complex task such as humans living on the moon.
Just to clarify: the comment about better spending the money here than on these endeavors was mine, not Bat’s.
As I read your post, I could not help but think of President Dwight Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address, where he warned of the growing influence of the “military-industrial complex.” His concern was not simply military spending, but the risk of national priorities being shaped by powerful institutions rather than the broader public good.
Today, a similar dynamic may be emerging in what could be called a “space-industrial complex.” The drive toward permanent settlements on the Moon and Mars is fueled not only by science, but increasingly by commercial interests, national prestige, billionaires, and the ambitions of a rapidly expanding industrial space sector.
Meanwhile, our understanding and stewardship of Earth remain unfinished. We continue to struggle with challenges involving weather remote sensing and prediction, climate monitoring, water resources, ecosystems, and natural hazards. Much of the environmental observing infrastructure that supports these efforts is aging, underfunded, or increasingly reliant on small commercial companies to fill gaps once supported through public investment.
The irony is striking. We discuss weather stations on Mars while portions of our Earth-observing infrastructure face uncertain futures. We envision lunar colonies while critical environmental monitoring systems here at home struggle for sustained support.
This is not an argument against exploration. Robotic missions, space telescopes, and Earth-observing satellites have transformed our understanding of both the universe and our own planet. Rather, it is an argument for balance.
The question is not whether we should explore the Moon or Mars. It is whether our fascination with distant worlds is causing us to neglect the one world we know can support human life.