Ex-astronaut says moon's resources may help Earth
By PATTY REINERT
Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Washington Bureau
Associated Press File
Astronaut John Young, who was part of the Apollo 16 mission to the
moon in April 1972, salutes the U.S. flag after it was planted on
the lunar surface.
WASHINGTON - In more than four decades at NASA, astronaut John
Young has flown in space six times seven if you count his lunar
liftoff. He smuggled a corned beef sandwich aboard a Gemini
capsule, walked the moon during Apollo and commanded the maiden
voyage of the space shuttle Columbia.
In an interview with the Houston Chronicle two weeks before his
retirement from the space agency, Young, 74, said he'll spend his
time advocating for a return to the lunar surface and a human
mission to Mars, convinced that life on Earth could depend on
it.
Q: What were you thinking about and feeling when you first
approached the moon on Apollo 10, and when you landed there to
explore on Apollo 16?
A: I was flying the spaceship and we were breaking into lunar
orbit, and we broke out over the highlands on the back side of the
moon. It was completely dark ... so we were in the dark and then we
broke out into sunlight and saw the back side of the moon. The
impressive thing about the back side of the moon is how many darn
craters it has. If the back side of the moon was facing us, I think
human beings would be far more adaptive, far more educated, about
(asteroid or comet) impacts on planet Earth. We're going to have a
few of those before it's over with. ...
But one-sixth gravity on the surface of the moon is just
delightful. It's not like being in zero gravity, you know. You can
drop a pencil in zero gravity and look for it for three days. In
one-sixth gravity, you just look down and there it is.
Q: Why should humans go back to the moon?
A: The moon has a lot of resources that we'll learn how to use in
this century and that will be great. ... The technologies we need
to live and work on the moon will save us right here on this
planet.
Bad things are inevitably going to happen to us, like comet or
asteroid impacts or super volcanoes. Flying in space is risky
business, but just staying on this planet is risky business
too.
The statistical risk of humans getting wiped out in the next 100
years due to a super volcano or asteroid or comet impact is 1 in
455. How does that relate? You're 10 times more likely to get wiped
out by a civilization-ending event in the next 100 years than you
are getting killed in a commercial airline crash.
The most dangerous thing we do in Houston, of course, is drive our
automobiles to work every day, so you know how dangerous that is
and how many people get killed doing that. But wiping out
civilization. ...
It's not the point that we should move (to another planet). It's
the point that the technologies that we need to live and work in
other places in the solar system will help us survive on Earth when
these bad things happen.
Q: You commanded the first flight of space shuttle Columbia in
1981, and you've also been a strong advocate for upgrading safety
at NASA. How do you think the agency is doing with that, and how
long do you think the space shuttle should be used?
A: You're going to need the shuttle to fly 28 missions in 10 years
to build the space station. I think the only way to do that is to
keep at the shuttle and look at every problem they have, and
they're doing that right now. I wish we were flying right this
minute.
Q: With Sean O'Keefe retiring, what do you think NASA needs in its
next administrator?
A: I think they need to be looking at somebody who understands the
business. It's a tough business, you know, doing things for science
and technology and advancing the future and making real progress on
the long term. It's tough to get people to want to do that.
The goal of going back to the moon and on to Mars even though it
would develop the technologies that over the long haul would save
people on this planet nobody wants to invest in it. You'd think
people would be worried about their children and grandchildren and
their children and grandchildren, but we really don't worry.
We now have the ability to develop the technology to allow us to
control our own destiny, and I think we should do that. I think it
would be very important in the long haul to try to keep
civilization going. It's a pretty important bunch, a great gang we
all belong to the human race ...
Q: What are your retirement plans?
A: I plan to keep advocating for developing the technologies we
need to get off the planet and keep the shuttle going and build the
space station and do all the things we need to do to make progress
in science and technology. Over the long haul, doing that will
certainly make things better for people all over the Earth.
You know, sooner or later, the Chinese and the Indians are going to
want two cars in every garage, just the way we do. If they put
fossil fuel cars in every garage, there isn't enough oil on the
planet to do that.
I think going to alternative sources of energy is the key to the
future of civilization on this planet, because we're gonna run out.
... Nobody's worried about that, but we should be very worried
about that.
I think it's really important to get folks educated about
these problems ... Earth's geologic history is pretty clear: It
says, quite frankly, that single-planet species don't last. Right
now we're a single-planet species. We need to fix
that.
