Lori Garver, the former deputy administrator of NASA, recently published an article suggesting that NASA should stop exploring space and instead reinvent itself as the Climate Change Agency.
Besides maintaining its Earth science research, NASA would send teams of scientists and engineers out into the world and tell communities how to reduce their carbon footprints.
On the face of it, the scheme seems to be very uninspiring. Out with “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,” and in with, “Hi, we’re from the government and you need to turn off your air conditioner.”
The scheme makes no sense, except as an excuse not to send American astronauts beyond low Earth orbit. The United States can work to alleviate climate change and explore the universe. Indeed, if one wants to reduce carbon emissions there are three simple ways that require no involvement by NASA: Build more nuclear power plants, continue the expansion of natural gas plants with carbon capture features (a company called NET Power has been running a carbon capture plant near La Port, Texas, that emits zero carbon), and plant trees.
None of those things preclude sending humans back to the moon, on to Mars, and beyond.
Garver also claims that space exploration does not poll very well. The assertion is true but only if one cherry-picks the polls. A recent Gallup survey noted that 53% of Americans favor sending astronauts to Mars.
Garver also claimed that robots can return science at pennies on the dollar that humans can. The problem with that claim is that 15 years ago the British Royal Astronautical Society conducted a study on the question, only to find that people are needed to conduct proper science on the moon and Mars. As they say, the science is settled.
Indeed, as it turns out, space exploration can provide a long-term solution to the world’s reliance on fossil fuels. The moon and some of the asteroids contain an abundance of mineral wealth. Commercial space companies are already making plans to mine this wealth and build solar power collectors, factories, and even human settlements in space.
Space-based solar power collectors, a concept that had been with us since the time of Apollo, involved collecting solar energy and then beaming it to Earth. Unlike ground-based solar collectors, the space-based variety would run 24/7, day and night, rain or shine. They would deliver clean, limitless energy to help maintain a technological society.
Another possibility involves an isotope that can be found on the moon called helium-3. As it turns out, helium-3 is a great fuel for future fusion power plants. Apollo astronaut and lunar geologist Harrison Schmitt has been touting this solution for a post-carbon energy future.
A better idea than turning NASA into a climate change corps to be sent out to pester people in the hinterlands about how much carbon dioxide they emit exists. The space agency should be tasked to do what it does best: to explore the solar system in partnership with international space agencies and commercial companies.
The early explorers of the Americans searched for gold. The new explorers of the high frontier of space will look for even more valuable resources. These resources will enable a future of energy abundance and a planet that can be kept pristine for generations to come.
Space exploration will yield a wealth of scientific knowledge, will create untold wealth, will provide an inspiration for the people of Earth, and will save the planet. The pursuit of those goals is consistent with the true spirit of Apollo. All we have to do is to reach out and take hold of the limitless opportunities that the high frontier of space promises.
Mark Whittington, who writes frequently about space and politics, has published a political study of space exploration entitled Why is It So Hard to Go Back to the Moon? as well as The Moon, Mars and Beyond. He blogs at Curmudgeons Corner. He is published in the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, the Hill, USA Today, the LA Times, and the Washington Post, among other venues.
