NASA published the blueprint for its future in space last week, and predictably responses were mixed. The plan delivers President George Bush鈥檚 鈥渘ew vision鈥� for spaceflight, which includes sending astronauts back to the moon. If funding continues at existing levels, people could set foot on one of several tantalising sites by 2018 (see 鈥淣ASA sets its sights on the moon鈥�).
Congress and some members of the space community have praised the plan for its pragmatism. Others have dismissed it as merely a rerun of the Apollo programme. But this criticism overlooks the fact that NASA鈥檚 options are limited. For years, NASA鈥檚 ambitions for human spaceflight have been squeezed by growing dissatisfaction with an apparently pointless International Space Station and the overwhelming costs and questionable benefits of sending people to Mars. Only the moon and a handful of asteroids occupy the vast gap between low-Earth orbit and Mars, and the moon is the cheaper target and more amenable to shifting schedules. The Apollo system was the product of a driven and well-financed cohort of engineers, and it should come as no surprise that NASA鈥檚 new architecture looks similar to theirs.
A more perceptive criticism is that the blueprint does not do enough to sell the moon as a destination, or indeed justify an ongoing human presence in space. Why do we need to be there at all? If it is to outlast the Bush administration, the new plan will have to offer more than footprints and flags.
Advertisement