Alex Boyd

Wednesday, May 9, 2018

Global Risk Politics
Alex Montgomery

POST-CONSTELLATION
WILL DONALD TRUMP USHER IN A NEW RENAISSANCE FOR HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT?

On December 11, Donald Trump signed White House Space Policy Directive 1, titled

Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America’s Human Space Exploration Program.

“The directive I am signing today will refocus America’s space program on human exploration

and discovery,” Trump stated, “It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the

Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only

plant our flag and leave our footprints -- we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to

Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond” (Northon 2017). Trumps declaration

represents a departure from the preceding eight years of U.S. space policy. The Obama

administration deemphasized human spaceflight to the Moon (and to Mars), instead focusing on

the International Space Station and the privatization of space travel. In some ways, this has

opened doors for private companies like SpaceX to pursue human spaceflight. But Obama’s

cancellation of the George W. Bush-era Constellation program also halted a resurgence in

popularity for human space missions. It is actually the Bush administration that is known for

investing in spaceflight—especially human spaceflight—in the 21st century. NASA scientist

Christopher McKay even credits Constellation for “the current [2013] international push to

explore the Moon.” Like Trump, Bush aspired to send human missions to “Mars and to worlds

beyond.” Bush also made a plan to send humans back to the moon by 2020. NASA made several

high-profile advancements and discoveries during the Obama administration, but many of these
projects were actually initiated between 2000 and 2008. The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

discovered flowing water on Mars in 2015, but the orbiter itself was actually launched in 2005.

Similarly, New Horizons took off from Earth in 2006 and reached Pluto in 2015. And the Kepler

Space Telescope, which has spotted thousands of exoplanets since its launch in 2009, was

originally scheduled to leave the ground in 2006. Not all of Bush’s space policy—such as cutting

funding to the ISS—has been popular, either among scientists or the public. But it certainly

generated nationalist sentiment and international credibility on science, both of which proved

useful to a Republican president otherwise known for being relatable but not necessarily bright.

Especially given the international unpopularity of the U.S.’s stem cell research program, and the

general perception of the Republican party as unscientific, it is easy to see why Trump might be

interested in the type of political capital George W. Bush was able to garner from investing in

space (CNN, 2004) (Wall 2017).

Human spaceflight, then, has a new relevance in 2018. And although NASA’s Mars

landing plan for the 2030’s does not include Moon missions, Trumps 2019 NASA budget

emphasizes them. As of February, Trump’s NASA budget hands over human spaceflight

activities in low-Earth orbit to private companies like SpaceX and refocuses human spaceflight

goals on the Moon, rather than Mars. This is not necessarily because Trump prefers Moon

missions to Mars ones but, more likely, because Moon missions offer the potential for immediate

political payoff. As I will argue in this paper, Moon missions are likely necessary for the

acceleration of a human Mars landing. From a normal accidents perspective, the Moon seems

like an appropriate environment to test the limits of human innovation as it pertains to human

space missions. Events such as the Challenger disaster serve as a reminder that NASA is fallible,

and that making harsh and scarcely understood space environments habitable is a risky business.
When the Curiosity rover landed on Mars, its small parachute was only partially effective in

slowing its descent. A human mission to Mars would require a large space shuttle with a large

parachute, which would be more likely to fall apart. This is because Mars has an atmosphere,

which causes molecules to heat up upon entry, but it does not have as much air drag as Earth,

meaning that an object entering Mars’ atmosphere would move even faster than something

entering Earth’s. This is not an issue on the Moon because it has no atmosphere in the first place

and 1/6 gravity. The Moon, then, is not a perfect testing ground for Mars landing strategies, but it

does allow us to conduct research on human space travel and settlement in general (Davis, 2017).

This essay will carry out two tasks. First, it will establish a scientific and political history

of human spaceflight, especially as it pertains to NASA. The history of human spaceflight begins

with the space race—the infamous Cold War competition between U.S.A. and the U.S.S.R.

When the Soviets sent the first satellite, then the first human, into space—in 1957 and 1961,

respectively—President Kennedy set out to land a human on the Moon. Second, it will analyze

the risks and challenges associated with settling the Moon, both as a mission in and of itself and

as preparation for Martian travel. The Moon harbors several hazardous materials, and humans

must learn how to adjust to its harsh environment. Though closer and theoretically safer to reach,

the Moon is not a planet. Sustained lunar colonization may prove difficult given environmental

factors. Finally, in my conclusion, I will summarize the history and present state of human

spaceflight capabilities, and speculate on the future of human spaceflight as it pertains to lunar

travel and, potentially, Mars.

This history of human spaceflight begins with the “shocking” launch of Sputnik 1, a

satellite with no humans aboard it. Following its launch in October of 1957, Sputnik produced

the first images of the Moon from outer space and prompted the U.S. government to enter into
what would become known as the space race: a Cold War competition between the U.S.A. and

the U.S.S.R., for which the symbolic prize was not only a reputation of international dominance

in science, but also a victory for either capitalism of communism. The Soviets flew Luna 1 by

the moon in January of 1959, followed by a number of “robotic probes,” then by Luna 3 that

same year. Luna 3 photographed the dark side of the moon, which is never directly visible from

Earth. Then, in 1961, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to enter outer

space. In response, John F. Kennedy committed the United States to land a human on the moon

by the end of the decade (Spudis 2008).

NASA began with the Ranger series of “hard landers,” which were designed to

“photograph the lunar surface at increasing levels of detail before crashing into the surface.”

After several “heartbreaking failures,” Ranger 7 successfully sent back detailed pictures of Mare

Nubium, the “Sea of Clouds.” Two more Rangers were sent to the Moon, through which we

discovered the full range of lunar crater sizes, as well as the existence of “regolith” on the

Moon’s surface. Because the Moon has no atmosphere, jagged-edged stardust can enter its

atmosphere without being smoothed upon descent. This “micrometeorite bombardment” covers

the Moon in a layer of dust with particles so sharp, they can chew through spacesuits (Davis

2017). Moon dust grinds up lunar surface rocks, creating a layer of regolith. The surface of the

moon, then, is powdery dust, but can still support the weight of humans and machines because

the Moon’s gravity is 1/6 of the Earth’s (Spudis 2008).

The U.S.S.R. also led the way on soft landings, that is, landings that left the relevant

spacecraft intact, by soft landing Luna 9 on the Moon’s mare plane, called Oceanus Procellarum,

in early 1966. This gave humans a much closer look at the lunar surface. In May 1966, the U.S.

responded by soft landing a complex robotic spacecraft called Surveyor 1, which sent back
detailed pictures of the lunar surface. The four subsequent Surveyor missions also produced

physical data on soil properties. From the Surveyor series, NASA discovered that while the “dark

maria” of the lunar surface is covered in iron-rich lava, the ground in the highlands is enriched

with aluminum. Additionally, NASA discovered that the Moon has no global magnetic field

(Spudis 2008).

NASA launched Apollo 8 into space during Christmastime of 1968. It was the first

NASA mission sending humans into space; astronauts circled the Moon for almost a day but did

not land. Apollo 10 orbited the moon in May of 1969 to test the lunar lander—the precursor to

the famed Apollo 11 mission. Finally, on July 20, 1969, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin safely

landed in Mare Tranquillis, or Sea of Tranquility, and became the first human beings to land on

the Moon. Their moon walk lasted over two hours, during which they collected samples of rocks

and soil. Data from the Moon landing, in combination with findings from the Surveyor era, led

scientists to reason that the ancient Moon was almost completely molten. The idea of a “magma

ocean” has since been applied to the early histories of all rocky planets (Spudis 2008).

In November that same year, Apollo 12 landed in Oceanus Procellarum (Ocean of

Storms), near the Surveyor 3 spacecraft, in a demonstration of NASA’s precision landing

capabilities. Astronauts Pete Conrad and Alan Bean conducted two moonwalks, collecting over

75 pounds of samples and deploying a “nuclear-powered experiment package.” An oxygen tank

exploded on Apollo 13, preventing it from reaching the Moon, but resulting in no casualties.

Still, the accident was closely followed around the world. Apollo 14 transported astronauts Alan

Shepard and Edgar Mitchell to the ancient lunar crater Fra Mauro, where they conducted two

moonwalks and returned with over 95lbs of rocks and soil (Spudis 2008).
 July 1971 marked the beginning of a series of NASA “J” missions through the Apollo

program—long-duration stays with a greater focus on science. Apollo 15 spent three days on the

Moon’s surface and was the first mission to use a lunar rover. Astronauts Dave Scott and Jim

Irwin drove the rover across the Hadley-Apennine landing sight. The Apollo 15 mission mapped

20% of the moon’s surface (from orbit) and returned 80 kilograms of samples (from the surface).

Apollo 16 landed near the ancient crater Descartes in April of 1972. Astronauts John Young and

Charlie Duke explored the site for three days, traveling over 18 miles and collecting over 206lbs

of samples. These samples would provide new insights on lunar magnetism. Young and Duke

also deployed and operated the first telescope on the moon (Spudis 2008).

Apollo 17 was the last human lunar mission to date. In December of 1972, it was sent to

Mare Serenitatis (Sea of Serenity). Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt were the first professional

geologists sent to the Moon—they spent three days exploring the Taurus-Littrow valley, and

returned with 242 pounds of samples. Like their predecessors, they “deployed a set of surface

experiments.” The key discovery associated with Apollo 17 is that lava flooded the moon for a

700-million-year span. In addition, Cernan and Schmitt found 3.6-billion-year-old volcanic ash.

Generally, the Apollo missions were instrumental in establishing an understanding of lunar

history (Spudis 2008).

Skylab—the U.S.’s first space station—defined human spaceflight in the U.S. for the

remainder of the 1970’s. So too did the Apollo Suyez Test Project, the first human space mission

with an international crew (American and Russian). The 1981 launch of the reusable space

shuttle Columbia ushered in a period of reliance on reusable shuttles for civilian and military

missions that would preoccupy NASA until Challenger—a shuttle—exploded in 1986. The

Challenger disaster represented a tremendous blow to the scientific and political credibility of
the U.S. space program. 7 astronauts, including civilian “Teacher in Space” Christa McAuliffe,

were killed when Challenger exploded 50,000 feet above the Kennedy Space Center and fell into

the sea. In addition to terrifying and devastating the American public, the disaster also cost

NASA two billion dollars. U.S. space policy “ground to a complete halt” (Heimann 421). As a

result, NASA determined that human spaceflight was too dangerous for civilians. The Teacher in

Space program, which sent teachers like McAuliffe into space with limited training, was

cancelled, and replaced with the Educated Astronaut Project, which required teachers to become

full-time astronauts (Challenger.org 2013). In the 1990’s, NASA sent two small robotic

missions—Clementine and the Lunar Prospector—to the Moon. NASA would not send humans

back to the Moon until 2014, in the Orion spacecraft. In 2009, NASA wrote on their website that

Orion’s launch would represent a “21st-century-style return to the Moon” (NASA 2009).

Table 1. U.S. Moon Missions, 1964-2000

Mission Date Type
Ranger 7 07/1964 hard lander
Ranger 8 & Ranger 9 02/1965-03/1965 hard lander
Surveyor 1 05/1966 soft lander
Surveyor 2-5 09/1966-09/1967 soft lander
U.S. Lunar Orbiter Series (5/5) 08/1966-11/1967 robotic (orbited)

Apollo 8 12/1968 human (orbited)

Apollo 9 03/1969 human (orbited)
Apollo 10 05/1969 human (orbited)
Apollo 11 07/1969 human (landed)
Apollo 12 11/1969 human (landed)
Apollo 13 04/1970 human (landing failed)

Apollo 14 01/1971 human (landed)

Apollo 15 07/1971 human (landed)
Apollo 16 04/1972 human (landed)
Apollo 17 12/1972 human (landed)
Clementine 01/1994 robotic (landed)
Lunar Prospector 01/1998 robotic (orbited)

Michael Duke, Wendell Mendell, and Barney Roberts’ paper for NASA’s Johnson Space

Center, Strategies for a Permanent Lunar Base (1985), provides a multi-phasic plan for long-
term lunar colonization. Unfortunately, it was written shortly before the Challenger disaster and,

as such, relies on the assumption that the Space Shuttle would continue to exist, and that NASA

would not become embroiled in a safety scandal. Resultantly, the paper is ambitious, but its

postulations are applicable nonetheless. Duke and colleagues write that the “manned lunar base

can be discussed in terms of three distinct functions.” These functions are scientific research,

resource extraction, and self-sufficiency. They also draw on a case analysis of the McMurdo

Base in Antarctica, in that it represents an analogue to exploring a different “world.” The base’s

design, they argue, should derive from McMurdo, as well as the Apollo missions, Skylab, the

Space Shuttle, and the International Space Station. Duke and colleagues argue that the Moon

must undergo industrialization in order to sustain long-term human missions, and that resource

extraction is key to industrialization. Available lunar resources include liquid oxygen, which can

be converted to fuel, water at the lunar poles, and hydrogen in the lunar regolith, as well as

metals like iron, titanium, and aluminum. Naturally, scientific research results are difficult to

predict, but the Moon has proved a prolific scientific subject in the past. Self-sufficiency is the

loftiest of these three functions, though also the most necessary to establish permanence. In some

sense, the other two functions are means to an end (self-sufficiency). Space programs must

sustain themselves financially, and without producing scientific research and resources, a lunar

base program may become subject to cancellation. McKay even argues that they key to staying

on the Moon, rather than merely visiting, is “driving down the transportation and operations

costs of the moon base” (McKay 2013). Duke and colleagues propose three distinct plans for a

multi-phasic lunar base program; each plan is focused on one of the three functions (science,

resources, and self-sufficiency). For our purposes, we’ll look to the third plan, which focuses on

self-sufficiency (Duke et al. 57-59).

 Phase I, called Precursor Exploration, is a global mapping of the Moon. It would include

an analysis of habitability as well as research on technologies for the extraction and transport of

lunar resources. Phase II, Research Outpost, involves sending only scientists to the base, to

conduct an assortment of lunar scientific tasks, including geological exploration, astronomical

observation, and piloting a plant for lunar oxygen extraction. Phase III, Permanent Occupancy,

might involve a rotating crew of astronauts and scientists perpetually occupying the base.

Infrastructure would include access to electricity, mobility in and away from the base, and

broader research capability. The base Duke and colleagues describe Phase IV, Advanced Base, as

“even more specialized.” It involves more scientific investigation and significant expansion of

resource extraction, as well as lunar agriculture and other products. It is the terminal phase for

the science- and resource-focused scenarios. Phase V, Self-Sufficient Colony, is unique to the

self-sufficiency scenario, and would involve an expanded population base including civilians, as

well as a closed ecological life support system, a lunar power station derived from 100% lunar

materials, and full-scale production of exportable oxygen (Duke et al., 65-66).

McKay admits that “a long-term NASA base on the Moon is not a common theme in

current discussion.” Yet he argues that a “long-term research base on Mars” is a key step

“leading to a permanent base on Mars.” He states that we should plan for 50 years on the Moon,

in part so that we can test technology before pursuing a Mars mission. “Every year,” he argues,

“new things will be discovered on the moon that will raise new questions and spawn new

research.” In Information Infrastructure for Long Term Habitation of Space Environments,

Thomas and colleagues that information infrastructure, such as GPS and Internet, must be

established in order to assure human wellbeing and productivity before either the Moon or Mars

can be effectively settled. Humans must be able to contact their families—and their fellow lunar
inhabitants—in order to thrive. Information infrastructure would likely be easier to construct on

the Moon than on Mars because of proximity to—and potential to interact with—existing Earth

infrastructure. Currently, glacial communication speed poses a substantial risk to space travelers;

the Moon might serve as a potential testing ground for interplanetary communication (Thomas et

al. 2000).

The history and present state of lunar space travel can tell us quite a bit about what its

future might look like. U.S. government investment in NASA appears to have been historically

contingent on international competition and political capital. Given the strength of Putin’s

present influence, it is easy to see echoes of Cold War competition, especially as the U.S. lags

behind in infrastructure, science, and healthcare. But just as competition sparked the space race,

so too did disaster bring about its halt. As potential space missions become increasingly

ambitious, they also become increasingly dangerous. We can see this in the trajectory of 20th

century space missions, and their ultimately culmination in the conclusion that space is not

currently safe for civilians. This conclusion is one of the primary obstacles to the pursuit of a

lunar settlement. In order to settle or even explore Mars in the form of human spaceflight, it

appears likely that NASA must first settle the Moon. But in order to settle the Moon, NASA

must develop civilian-proof systems that do not require expertise. Civilian space travel may still

invoke Challenger echoes for the American public, and it has not been attempted since 1986.

Convincing the public—not to mention U.S. allies and competitors—that human spaceflight is

both safe and worthwhile may prove a conceptual hurdle. Space is exciting now, but most people

have not been there and do not know anyone who has. If that changes, will it remain glamorous?

The space race was situated in a time and place, in that information had become

particularly valuable as a result of international competition. Kennedy sought to send men to the
Moon not only for the sake of scientific advancement, but also to assert American dominance

over the Soviet Union. When Russia achieved multiple space “firsts”—first satellite and first

human spaceflight—U.S. government leaders felt compelled to compete in space as a field. It is

fitting, then, that Donald Trump—an unpopular president with a notoriously fragile ego—has

become suddenly interested in space. But it is not likely that information alone could sustain a

long-term lunar base. Extraction of material resources is critical to self-sufficiency for a

permanent lunar base because, in addition to being viable, a permanent NASA lunar base must

maintain U.S. government funding. That means the base would likely have to occupy the public

imagination such that space remains a popular and compelling political issue to voters for several

decades, or at least until the base becomes self-sufficient, at which point the base itself would

(hopefully) become popular. McKay and Duke and colleagues both support resource extraction

as part of a plan for a lunar base. The Moon, then, need not only become industrialized in order

to be settled—it must become an industry.

Space can become unpopular just as easily—if not more easily—as it can become

popular. Challenger frightened civilians and scientists alike, so much so that the U.S. space

program all but halted. Years later, the Obama administration largely dismissed human

spaceflight to the Moon as a relic of the past. The George W. Bush administration tried to revive

the centrality of human spaceflight in NASA’s budget, but space programs often last for longer

than eight years, meaning that often, multiple presidents in a row must support a NASA program

for it to be successful. A lunar colony would require several decades of presidential support, but

it also shows promise for innovations in science, manufacturing, and tourism. Most importantly,

a lunar colony has the potential to allow for scientific developments which could open up the

entire solar system to humans. Ambitious of Martian travel —especially on the part of NASA
scientists—are increasingly accompanied by lunar base plans, which are likely to be added to

NASA’s official Mars plan in response to Trump’s memorandum. It is clear that human

spaceflight is due for a resurgence, and that the Moon will be a central factor. The question, then,

is how we will use the Moon to develop a more complete understanding of space, and to perfect

the safety measures entailed with traveling beyond the Earth.

 Bibliography

Challenger.org. 2013. “Mission 51-L | Challenger.OrgChallenger.Org.” Retrieved May 10, 2018

(https://web.archive.org/web/20131104173819/http://www.challenger.org/about-us/mission-51-
l/).
CNN. n.d. “CNN.Com - Bush Unveils Vision for Moon and beyond - Jan. 15, 2004.” Retrieved May
10, 2018 (http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/).
Coustal, Laurence and Mariette Le Roux. n.d. “Moon Tourists Risk Rough Ride, Experts Say.”
Retrieved March 31, 2018 (https://phys.org/news/2017-03-moon-tourists-rough-experts.html).
Davenport, Christian. 2017. “Pence Vows America Will Return to the Moon. The History of Such
Promises Suggests Otherwise.” Washington Post, October 11. Retrieved March 31, 2018
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/10/10/presidents-love-evoking-jfks-
iconic-moon-speech-now-its-the-trump-administrations-turn/).
Davis, Jason. “Let’s Talk about This Whole Moon vs. Mars Thing for Human Spaceflight.”
Planetary. Published January 26, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2018
(http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170126-moon-vs-mars-hsf.html).
Davis, Jason. “NASA Unveiled New Plans for Getting Humans to Mars, and Hardly Anyone
Noticed.” Planetary. Published April 7, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2018
(http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170407-new-mars-plans-unveiled.html).
Duke, Michael B., Wendell W. Mendell, and Barney B. Roberts. “Strategies for a Permanent Lunar
Base.” Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century. 1985.
Knapton, Sarah. 2016. “Moon Disease: Apollo Astronauts More Likely to Die of Heart Problems.”
The Telegraph, July 28. Retrieved March 31, 2018
(https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/07/28/moon-disease-apollo-astronauts-more-likely-
to-die-of-heart-probl/).
Krishna, Swapna, “Russia and the US Will Work Together to Build a Moon Base.” Engagdet.
Published September 27, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2018
(https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/27/russia-us-cooperate-on-lunar-base/).
Galeon, Don, “Chris Hadfield: We Should Settle on the Moon Before Mars.” Futurism. Published
August 27, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2018 (https://futurism.com/chris-hadfield-we-should-
settle-on-the-moon-before-mars/).
Galeon, Don. “NASA Just Released Their Latest Plans to Get Humans to Mars.” Futurism. Published
April 10, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2018 (https://futurism.com/nasa-just-released-their-latest-
plans-to-get-humans-to-mars/).
Geekwire 2017. “NASA Could Go Back to the Future and Revive Moon Base Plans from a Decade
Ago.” GeekWire. Retrieved March 10, 2018 (https://www.geekwire.com/2017/nasa-go-back-
future-revive-moon-base-plans-decade-ago/).
Hadhazy, Adam and 2011 04:41pm ET. 2011. “What If NASA Hadn’t Canceled the Apollo
Program?” Live Science. Retrieved March 31, 2018 (/15900-apollo-canceled.html).
Heiken, Grant, David Vaniman, and BRUCE Lehnert. 1990. Dust: A Major Environmental Hazard on
the Earth’s Moon. Los Alamos National Lab., NM (USA).
Heimann, C. F. Larry. 1993. “Understanding the Challenger Disaster: Organizational Structure and
the Design of Reliable Systems.” The American Political Science Review 87(2):421–35.
Retrieved March 10, 2018 (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2939051).
Johnson, Stewart W. “Evolution of Concepts for Lunar Bases.” Lunar Bases and Space Activities of
the 21st Century. 1985.
Krauthammer, Charles. 2012. “Farewell, the New Frontier.” Washington Post, April 19. Retrieved
March 31, 2018 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/farewell-the-new-
frontier/2012/04/19/gIQA49o8TT_story.html).
Lant, Karla. “A Space Station That Orbits the Moon May Be on the Way.” Futurism. Published April
5, 2017. Retrieved March 10, 2018 (https://futurism.com/a-space-station-that-orbits-the-moon-
may-be-on-the-way/).
Lewis, Danny. n.d. “Many of NASA’s Recent Successes Actually Date Back to the Bush
Administration.” Smithsonian. Retrieved March 31, 2018
(https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/nasa-recent-success-date-bush-administration-
180960744/).
Lovett, Richard A. 2017. “Scientists Cautiously Back Trump’s Moon Plan.” Cosmos Magazine.
Retrieved March 31, 2018 (https://cosmosmagazine.com/space/scientists-cautiously-back-trump-
s-moon-plan).
McKay, Christopher P. 2013. “The Case for a NASA Research Base on the Moon.” New Space
1(4):162–66. Retrieved March 10, 2018
(http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/space.2013.0018).
Merica, Dan. December 11, 2017. “Trump to Send Astronauts Back to the Moon.” CNN. Retrieved
March 31, 2018 (https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-astronauts-moon/index.html).
NASA. 2011. “NASA - A 21st Century-Style Return to the Moon.” Retrieved May 10, 2018
(https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/21st_century_style_return_to_the_moo
n.html).
NBC News, “NASA Has Big Plans for the Moon — and Big Competition.” Retrieved March 10,
2018 (https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/nasa-has-big-plans-moon-it-s-not-only-one-
ncna806646).
New Scientist, “Elon Musk’s New Plans for a Moon Base and a Mars Mission by 2022.” Retrieved
March 10, 2018 (https://www.newscientist.com/article/2149003-elon-musks-new-plans-for-a-
moon-base-and-a-mars-mission-by-2022/).
Northon, Karen. 2015. “NASA’s New Orion Spacecraft Completes First Spaceflight Test.” NASA.
Retrieved May 10, 2018 (http://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/december/nasa-s-new-orion-
spacecraft-completes-first-spaceflight-test).
Northon, Karen. 2017. “President Signs New Space Policy Directive.” NASA. Retrieved March 10,
2018 (http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/new-space-policy-directive-calls-for-human-expansion-
across-solar-system).
Smith, Yvette. 2015. “Apollo 8: Earthrise.” NASA. Retrieved March 10, 2018
(http://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/apollo-8-earthrise).
Spudis, Paul D., 2008. “NASA - Lunar Exploration: Past and Future.” Retrieved March 31, 2018
(https://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/lunarExploration.html).
SSERVI. n.d. “Moon Radiation Findings May Reduce Health Risks to Astronauts | Solar System
Exploration Research Virtual Institute.” Retrieved March 31, 2018
(https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/moon-radiation-findings-may-reduce-health-risks-to-astronauts/).
SSERVI, “Scientists Reveal Design Plans for Future Lunar Base | Solar System Exploration Research
Virtual Institute.” Retrieved March 10, 2018 (https://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/scientists-reveal-
design-plan-for-future-lunar-base/).
Scientists from across the world gather for a conference on space travel; several present plans for future
lunar bases.
Tate, Karl. 2014. “Destination Moon: The 350-Year History of Lunar Exploration (Infographic).”
Space.Com. Retrieved March 31, 2018 (https://www.space.com/26541-moon-exploration-350-
year-history-infographic.html).
The White House, “Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America’s Human Space
Exploration Program.” Retrieved March 10, 2018 (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-
actions/presidential-memorandum-reinvigorating-americas-human-space-exploration-program/).
Donald Trump announces his plans to increase the number of human-piloted American spaceflights.
Thomas, Jay et al. 2000. “Information Infrastructure for Long Term Habitation of Space
Environments.” The Space Frontier Foundation.
Wall, Mike. February 12, and 2018 02:18pm ET. “Trump’s 2019 NASA Budget Request Puts Moon
Ahead of Space Station.” Space.Com. Retrieved March 31, 2018 (https://www.space.com/39671-
trump-nasa-budget-2019-funds-moon-over-iss.html).
Wall, Mike, Space com Senior Writer |. January 19, and 2017 06:55pm ET. 2017. “President Obama’s
Space Legacy: Mars, Private Spaceflight and More.” Space.Com. Retrieved March 31, 2018
(https://www.space.com/35394-president-obama-spaceflight-exploration-legacy.html).
Anon, n.d. “Lunar Prospector - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018
(https://www.google.com/search?q=lunar+prospector&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=lun
ar+prospector&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1971j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. n.d. “Clementine Spacecraft - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018
(https://www.google.com/search?q=clementine+spacecraft&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&o
q=clementine+spacecraft&aqs=chrome.0.0l6.2221j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. n.d. “Apollo 9 - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018a
(https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+9&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=apollo+9&a
qs=chrome.0.69i59j69i60j0l4.1533j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. n.d. “Apollo 13 - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018b
(https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+13&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=apollo+13
&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.980j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. n.d. “Apollo 14 - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018c
(https://www.google.com/search?q=apollo+14&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=apollo+14
&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1048j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. n.d. “Ranger 9 - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018d
(https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&ei=lwr0Wpa
4Jovk0gLexLigBA&q=ranger+9&oq=ranger+9&gs_l=psy-
ab.3..0l2j0i67k1j0l7.19274.20234.0.20411.8.7.0.0.0.0.139.593.5j2.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-
ab..1.7.591...0i131k1.0.EVXmIL62hu0).
Anon. n.d. “Surveyor 2 - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018e
(https://www.google.com/search?q=surveyor+2&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=surveyor
+2&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1339j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. n.d. “Surveyor 5 - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018f
(https://www.google.com/search?q=surveyor+5&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=surveyor
+5&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.1092j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. n.d. “Ranger 7 - Google Search.” Retrieved May 10, 2018
(https://www.google.com/search?q=ranger+7&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS750US750&oq=ranger+7&
aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2046j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8).
Anon. 2018. “Lunar Orbiter Program.” Wikipedia. Retrieved May 10, 2018
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lunar_Orbiter_program&oldid=821810488).