22 | NewScientist | 8 September 2018COMMENT
The US plan to build a habitable station orbiting the moon is
the worst idea of the new space age, says Robert ZubrinBEFORE the recent Mars Society
convention, I was asked what I
thought of the US plan to send
astronauts to the moon. No doubt
I was expected to explain why the
Red Planet is a more suitable goal,
but I said this was about much
more than the moon versus Mars.
I am prepared to make the case
for prioritising Mars, though.
Once warm and wet, it may have
evolved life, and if we can find
evidence of it, we could learn a lot
about the possible prevalence and
diversity of life in the cosmos.
Taking on Mars would inspire
millions of young people into
science. It is also the closest planet
with the resources for human
settlement. In short, Mars is
where the science is, where the
challenge is and where the future
is. It should be the goal.
Unfortunately, that argument
assumes that those making US
space policy think it is importantfor NASA’s human space flight
programme to have any goal at all.
This is far from evident. While the
Trump administration says that it
is setting its sights on a return to
the moon, its actions do not lend
credence to such claims.
If it intended to put people on
the moon again, it would fund the
development of a lunar lander.
Instead it is funding the Lunar
Orbit Platform-Gateway, a costly
boondoggle that serves no useful
purpose. US Vice President Mike
Pence talks of it as a done deal.
What he fails to add is that we
don’t need a lunar-orbiting base
to go to the moon, or to Mars, or
to go anywhere. Not only that,
crewed trips to anywhere beyond
Earth orbit would be designed to
use the gateway as a staging post,
adding to fuel requirements and
decreasing the load they can carry,
which is why I call it the Lunar
Orbit Tollbooth instead.Sheer lunacy
If they value facts, Americans can elect a
scientist, says Shaughnessy NaughtonTHE battle for political power in
the US is heating up. The two
main parties are stepping up pleas
for support in this autumn’s
midterm election, which will
decide who controls Congress.
That’s nothing unusual.
But November’s vote does offer
something the electorate hasn’t
seen before: a dedicated push toget candidates with science
backgrounds on the ballot.
Anti-science attitudes in US
politics are well-documented.
For those enraged by them, help
is at hand. I started 314 Action in
2016 to recruit, train and support
scientists running for office, and
we’ve been laying the groundwork
to bring evidence-based policy tothe halls of power ever since.
I founded this organisation in
part because I know how hard it
is to be a candidate with a STEM
background – I was one myself.
I’m a chemist by training, and
when I ran for Congress in 2014,
I realised that if you aren’t a
lawyer or a career politician, it
can be hard to break into politics.
Take, for example, the simple
barrier of entry for scientists
in the middle of their careers.
Unlike lawyers (who are oftenencouraged by their firms to run),
taking a year off to campaign
can spell the end of a scientist’s
career. Our organisation acts as a
support system and siren call for
a community that has long shied
away from politics.
The response has been
promising. An unprecedented
number of scientists ditched lab
coats for suits and launched
campaigns. While I neither expect
nor desire every seat of Congress
to be held by persons with STEM
backgrounds, 2018 is a great
chance to bolster the scientific
community’s representation
there. Currently, there is one
physicist (Representative Bill“There are more talk
radio hosts in Congress
than there are physicists
and chemists”A vote for reason