Apr 23, 2019

The science case for returning to the Moon

Miriam Kramer, author of Space

llustration: Lazaro Gamio/Axios

Geopolitics may be driving the Trump administration's planned return to the Moon by 2024, but, if risk and reward are balanced, science could benefit from the lunar return as well.

The big picture: The Moon acts as a time capsule of our solar system and Earth specifically. Clues into how the Moon formed 4.5 billion years ago — after a large object slammed into the Earth, carving out our natural satellite — are preserved in its geology.

  • "Understanding the Moon has such critical importance for understanding the Earth, for starters, because the Earth's earliest history is essentially lost" due to plate tectonics and weathering, planetary geologist Brett Denevi, of Johns Hopkins University's Applied Physics Laboratory, tells Axios.
  • That preservation allows scientists to turn back the clock, revealing clues about our part of space when life was just forming about 3.9 billion years ago.

"This is going to be a treasure trove for planetary science," says Alan Stern, a planetary scientist at the Southwest Research Institute.

But, but, but: Human spaceflight is expensive and risky. In President Trump's budget released in March, the agency requested $10.7 billion to continue developing and building the components needed to send people back to the moon by 2028.

  • For that price, NASA could send 4 Curiosity rovers to Mars with money to spare.
  • NASA is weighing the added cost of an accelerated timeline.
  • That money could also be used to explore worlds we've only gotten a tantalizing look at so far, like Neptune or Uranus, which have never been studied from close range by a dedicated except mission for Voyager 2's flybys.

"... [t]here are good science cases for sending people to the moon. I think that a lot of those science cases, when you factor in the cost, the timing and all that, a lot of that could be done with robotic missions," theoretical astrophysicist Katie Mack tells Axios.

On the other hand: Rovers and landers are incredibly useful for science, but the science they do is often cumbersome by comparison to what a human can accomplish on the ground.

  • It might take weeks of planning to set a rover on a certain course to investigate a rock formation just a few feet away, whereas a person could simply walk over to an outcropping.
  • A human mission to the moon would also allow astronauts to bring home hundreds of pounds of moon rocks, as opposed to robotic sample return, which has historically only resulted in grams of material.
  • The Apollo cache of rocks is still viable for scientific inquiry, but a new trove of rocks from a different part of the moon that is preserved using modern scientific standards would be a boon for study.

The bottom line: The Apollo program was motivated by a determination to beat the Soviet Union to the lunar surface, but science still gained from it.

Go deeper:

Go deeper

Grassley to hold up pair of nominations until Trump explains IG firings

Grassley questions Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein on June 3 in Washington, D.C. Photo: Greg Nash-Pool/Getty Images

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said on Thursday that he will block the confirmation of two of President Trump's nominees until the White House provides "adequate explanations" for why the inspectors general for the intelligence community and State Department were ousted in the past two months.

Why it matters: It's a rare attempt by a Republican to hold Trump accountable for his recent purge of federal watchdogs. Grassley has long considered himself a defender of inspectors general.

John Kelly defends James Mattis against Trump attacks

John Kelly in the White House in July 2017. Photo: Cheriss May/NurPhoto via Getty Images

Former White House chief of staff John Kelly defended James Mattis on Thursday after President Trump attacked the former defense secretary as "the world's most overrated general" and claimed on Twitter that he was fired.

What he's saying: “The president did not fire him. He did not ask for his resignation,” Kelly told the Washington Post in an interview. “The president has clearly forgotten how it actually happened or is confused."

Barr claims "no correlation" between removing protesters and Trump's church photo op

Attorney General Bill Barr said at a press conference Thursday that there was "no correlation" between his decision to order police to forcibly remove protesters from Lafayette Park and President Trump's subsequent visit to St. John's Episcopal Church earlier this week.

Driving the news: Barr was asked to respond to comments from Defense Secretary Mark Esper, who said Tuesday that he "did not know a photo op was happening" and that he does everything he can to "try and stay out of situations that may appear political."