Why The Moon Is STILL Unexplored By Humans
advertisement
VOICE OVER: Peter DeGiglio
WRITTEN BY: Aidan Johnson
Apollo 17 was the last crewed mission to the moon, in 1972. In more than 50 years since then, we've never been back. So, why is that? And what does the future have in store?
Why The Moon Is Still Unexplored By Humans
The Moon is Earth’s closest celestial body. It has orbited our planet for roughly 4 and a half billion years. It’s the largest visible object in the night sky. But despite its relative proximity, it’s still incredibly under-explored. Half a century has now passed since the last of the Apollo missions landed on the lunar surface. We’ve had more than 50 years where no one has been back. So, what happened? We seemingly have the most advanced technology ever. There’s a long list of other ambitious space travel endeavors that we’re gradually working through. But the moon remains a mystery.
This is Unveiled, and today we’re taking a closer look at why the Moon is still unexplored by humans.
Humans have been fascinated by the Moon for thousands of years. Early astronomers like Galileo used pioneering telescopes to study its surface, revealing the craters that cover it. But never has the moon been more front and center than it was during the famous Space Race of the 1960s. And, of course, that race culminated in an iconic moment in modern history. NASA’s Apollo program marked a monumental leap in our understanding of the Moon, when on July 20th, 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts - Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin - set foot on it. Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans on the lunar surface, cementing their place in history forever more.
At that time, there were no immediate signs that, even with the race won, our links to the moon would peter out. More lunar missions followed - Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 - further expanding our knowledge of lunar geology. A wealth of samples were brought home by the astronauts conducting these missions, and a variety of experiments were conducted on the surface. But, in 1972, the final Apollo mission was completed. And, afterward, the interest and funding for lunar exploration plummeted.
High costs and shifting priorities led NASA, and other space agencies, to focus on other goals, such as Mars exploration and space station development. In the decades following, the moon has been sidelined. The legacy of the Apollo missions laid the groundwork for future space exploration in general, and it continues to inspire new generations to look towards the stars. But, the moon itself just doesn’t hold sway like it once did. Again, given the close proximity to Earth, you might expect it to be a hotspot for space research. But, no.
Ultimately, one of the main reasons as to why attention has shifted away from the moon is because getting there was just so supremely difficult. And the technical hurdles are just as formidable now as they were then. In fact, in many cases, the list of problems has actually grown thanks to what was learned through Apollo. For example, all 12 astronauts who did walk on the moon are recorded as having experienced lunar hay fever. It’s a reaction to the harsh lunar dust that covers the moon’s surface and, for some, it took days to recover from. On Earth, the presence of wind and water gradually smooths most of the dust and powders that are found here... but that doesn’t happen on the Moon. And, as a result, lunar dust particles - the regolith - are dangerously sharp, and variously toxic. We didn’t know that in the Apollo era; we do know it now. And there are countless similar kinds of new obstacles to contend with, too.
On the other hand, there’s a long list of long-known issues, as well, such as the intense temperature swings that occur on the moon. At night, temperatures can drop to a phenomenally low level - less than minus-400 degrees Fahrenheit at the poles. During the daytime, however, the opposite is true, with temperatures peaking at around 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the equator. Suffice to say, visiting astronauts and hypothetical first settlers would have an incredibly tough time coping with these conditions, which mostly come from the lack of a substantial atmosphere on the moon. The surface is bathed in cosmic radiation with almost no barrier between it and the rest of space. What’s really unfortunate, though, is that the moon is generally too small to support an atmosphere. Even if one were to be artificially created, it wouldn’t hold, and would instead just gradually (and eternally) leak out into space. So, solving the temperature problem is certainly no easy fix.
And all this against the backdrop of there being no breathable oxygen, food, or water. The moon just does not provide the essentials that humans need. And so, it’s an immeasurably complex logistical nightmare to support human life out there, beyond more than just a few hours in spacesuits. Technically, there is oxygen in the soil. But, how to extract it? In this one case, we can see that again there’s no quick solution. Advanced machinery would need to be ferried to the moon, set up on the moon, and probably at least partly controlled by human hand. And then, even if oxygen were to be taken from the ground, how to distribute it? And, how to do all of that while, again, there’s no food or water to speak of?
One thing has been increasingly clear in the years and decades since the Apollo Program. Even if a human presence on the moon were practically possible, making it work would be a huge financial burden. The escalating cost (and dwindling budget) is another leading reason as to why we’ve left the moon alone. The Apollo program, from 1960 until 1973, cost more than 250 billion dollars in today’s money, adjusted for inflation. At the time, the geopolitical climate, and especially tensions between America and the Soviet Union, were a big reason why the US government could justify spending so much. There was a race that they needed to win, and for far more than only scientific progress. Today, there’s no such pressure. And so, the eye-watering costs of space travel are, well, eye-watering rather than inspiring.
NASA itself has changed as a result. Over the years, there have been various initiatives that have taken top billing rather than the moon, including the Space Shuttle program, Mars exploration, and developing the International Space Station. All of these ventures, although seemingly made with efficiency in mind, demanded their own huge chunk of funding. The moon fell further and further down the pecking order. And, what’s more, NASA today is much farther spread, linking up with private companies and contractors all over the world. The Agency doesn’t have the same, relatively simple setup that it did in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Pooling all its resources for another moonshot just isn’t really feasible.
The subject of Mars is, though, perhaps the most significant of all. Despite it being much further away from us, and no matter that it is still mostly inhospitable to us, Mars is the new poster child for modern solar system travel. It’s the next frontier, while the moon is old hat. And, while it’s inhospitable now, there’s growing consensus that it might offer better opportunities for long-term human settlements in the future. The interest around Mars is so much more enticing to investors and the general public that, ultimately, the moon may only ever function as a stopping point to re-launch astronauts on their way to the Red Planet.
Of course, all of this said, we haven’t completely given up on lunar exploration. NASA’s ongoing Artemis program is at the forefront of what still could be a renaissance for moon missions. A key goal of Artemis is to once again send humans to the moon, for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. And, in fact, one of its long term targets is to build a lunar base that will function as a launchpad for other missions to Mars and beyond. The more cynical onlookers remain unconvinced that Artemis will deliver all that it promises. But, many are optimistic, with some even arguing that we could be in the midst of a New Space Race - primarily run between America and China, and primarily driven by the private space travel sector.
How do you see the future unfolding? What do you think is the main reason why we haven’t returned to the moon yet? Are we now on the brink of another scientific revolution? Or will we still be waiting to reignite the lunar spark in another 50 years from now?
The Moon is Earth’s closest celestial body. It has orbited our planet for roughly 4 and a half billion years. It’s the largest visible object in the night sky. But despite its relative proximity, it’s still incredibly under-explored. Half a century has now passed since the last of the Apollo missions landed on the lunar surface. We’ve had more than 50 years where no one has been back. So, what happened? We seemingly have the most advanced technology ever. There’s a long list of other ambitious space travel endeavors that we’re gradually working through. But the moon remains a mystery.
This is Unveiled, and today we’re taking a closer look at why the Moon is still unexplored by humans.
Humans have been fascinated by the Moon for thousands of years. Early astronomers like Galileo used pioneering telescopes to study its surface, revealing the craters that cover it. But never has the moon been more front and center than it was during the famous Space Race of the 1960s. And, of course, that race culminated in an iconic moment in modern history. NASA’s Apollo program marked a monumental leap in our understanding of the Moon, when on July 20th, 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts - Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin - set foot on it. Armstrong and Aldrin became the first humans on the lunar surface, cementing their place in history forever more.
At that time, there were no immediate signs that, even with the race won, our links to the moon would peter out. More lunar missions followed - Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 - further expanding our knowledge of lunar geology. A wealth of samples were brought home by the astronauts conducting these missions, and a variety of experiments were conducted on the surface. But, in 1972, the final Apollo mission was completed. And, afterward, the interest and funding for lunar exploration plummeted.
High costs and shifting priorities led NASA, and other space agencies, to focus on other goals, such as Mars exploration and space station development. In the decades following, the moon has been sidelined. The legacy of the Apollo missions laid the groundwork for future space exploration in general, and it continues to inspire new generations to look towards the stars. But, the moon itself just doesn’t hold sway like it once did. Again, given the close proximity to Earth, you might expect it to be a hotspot for space research. But, no.
Ultimately, one of the main reasons as to why attention has shifted away from the moon is because getting there was just so supremely difficult. And the technical hurdles are just as formidable now as they were then. In fact, in many cases, the list of problems has actually grown thanks to what was learned through Apollo. For example, all 12 astronauts who did walk on the moon are recorded as having experienced lunar hay fever. It’s a reaction to the harsh lunar dust that covers the moon’s surface and, for some, it took days to recover from. On Earth, the presence of wind and water gradually smooths most of the dust and powders that are found here... but that doesn’t happen on the Moon. And, as a result, lunar dust particles - the regolith - are dangerously sharp, and variously toxic. We didn’t know that in the Apollo era; we do know it now. And there are countless similar kinds of new obstacles to contend with, too.
On the other hand, there’s a long list of long-known issues, as well, such as the intense temperature swings that occur on the moon. At night, temperatures can drop to a phenomenally low level - less than minus-400 degrees Fahrenheit at the poles. During the daytime, however, the opposite is true, with temperatures peaking at around 250 degrees Fahrenheit at the equator. Suffice to say, visiting astronauts and hypothetical first settlers would have an incredibly tough time coping with these conditions, which mostly come from the lack of a substantial atmosphere on the moon. The surface is bathed in cosmic radiation with almost no barrier between it and the rest of space. What’s really unfortunate, though, is that the moon is generally too small to support an atmosphere. Even if one were to be artificially created, it wouldn’t hold, and would instead just gradually (and eternally) leak out into space. So, solving the temperature problem is certainly no easy fix.
And all this against the backdrop of there being no breathable oxygen, food, or water. The moon just does not provide the essentials that humans need. And so, it’s an immeasurably complex logistical nightmare to support human life out there, beyond more than just a few hours in spacesuits. Technically, there is oxygen in the soil. But, how to extract it? In this one case, we can see that again there’s no quick solution. Advanced machinery would need to be ferried to the moon, set up on the moon, and probably at least partly controlled by human hand. And then, even if oxygen were to be taken from the ground, how to distribute it? And, how to do all of that while, again, there’s no food or water to speak of?
One thing has been increasingly clear in the years and decades since the Apollo Program. Even if a human presence on the moon were practically possible, making it work would be a huge financial burden. The escalating cost (and dwindling budget) is another leading reason as to why we’ve left the moon alone. The Apollo program, from 1960 until 1973, cost more than 250 billion dollars in today’s money, adjusted for inflation. At the time, the geopolitical climate, and especially tensions between America and the Soviet Union, were a big reason why the US government could justify spending so much. There was a race that they needed to win, and for far more than only scientific progress. Today, there’s no such pressure. And so, the eye-watering costs of space travel are, well, eye-watering rather than inspiring.
NASA itself has changed as a result. Over the years, there have been various initiatives that have taken top billing rather than the moon, including the Space Shuttle program, Mars exploration, and developing the International Space Station. All of these ventures, although seemingly made with efficiency in mind, demanded their own huge chunk of funding. The moon fell further and further down the pecking order. And, what’s more, NASA today is much farther spread, linking up with private companies and contractors all over the world. The Agency doesn’t have the same, relatively simple setup that it did in the ‘60s and ‘70s. Pooling all its resources for another moonshot just isn’t really feasible.
The subject of Mars is, though, perhaps the most significant of all. Despite it being much further away from us, and no matter that it is still mostly inhospitable to us, Mars is the new poster child for modern solar system travel. It’s the next frontier, while the moon is old hat. And, while it’s inhospitable now, there’s growing consensus that it might offer better opportunities for long-term human settlements in the future. The interest around Mars is so much more enticing to investors and the general public that, ultimately, the moon may only ever function as a stopping point to re-launch astronauts on their way to the Red Planet.
Of course, all of this said, we haven’t completely given up on lunar exploration. NASA’s ongoing Artemis program is at the forefront of what still could be a renaissance for moon missions. A key goal of Artemis is to once again send humans to the moon, for the first time since Apollo 17 in 1972. And, in fact, one of its long term targets is to build a lunar base that will function as a launchpad for other missions to Mars and beyond. The more cynical onlookers remain unconvinced that Artemis will deliver all that it promises. But, many are optimistic, with some even arguing that we could be in the midst of a New Space Race - primarily run between America and China, and primarily driven by the private space travel sector.
How do you see the future unfolding? What do you think is the main reason why we haven’t returned to the moon yet? Are we now on the brink of another scientific revolution? Or will we still be waiting to reignite the lunar spark in another 50 years from now?
