Ad astra per... Dubya? Spurred on by the recent success of the new Mars rover, President Bush took the podium two weeks ago to deliver a speech before an audience of NASA officials and employees. In this speech he outlined his plans for the future of the U.S. space program. Among other more mundane goals such as the completion of the International Space Station, the President called for reorganization and expansion of NASA spending for the development of a new space shuttle which would allow for the United States to send men back to the moon with the ultimate goal of building a permanent manned settlement. This moon base would then be used as a launching pad for future manned trips to surrounding planets. This speech was meant to revitalize American interest in the space program and invigorate a populace disheartened by high unemployment rates and a ballooning budget deficit.
To its credit, the moon base idea has some interesting, if outlandish potential benefits. As President Bush noted in his speech: "Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost." More importantly, "[The moon's] soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air." Rocket fuel, breathable air, cheaper space flight... who wouldn't want that!? And what is the cost to the American people? Only $86 billion over the next five years, and hundreds of billions of dollars in the future.
Unfortunately, recent public opinion polls have not demonstrated the type of public interest President Bush expected and needed for his program. While most people favor space exploration in general, very few are willing to spend the money and risk the lives necessary to continue manned exploration of deep space. Where money is concerned, it seems people would prefer spending on issues closer to home. This of course is the classic problem with the space program: it's expensive. Show people a NASA budget of $86 billion and they start thinking of all the thousands of ways it could be spent... on Earth. However, this isn't the first time George W. has tried to bum $86 billion off the United States Treasury, and last time he got away with the money and high public opinion polls. All he had to do was mutter three little words, and those three little words will save him again: War on Terror.
The reasoning behind this is simple: Americans are willing to spend inordinate amounts of money for the satisfaction of smiting their enemies. President Kennedy realized this in 1961, when he declared that America had "tossed its cap over the wall of space" and had no choice but to follow, lest the Russians come and steal it away. True, the Russian space program crashed and burned harder than the Mir into the Pacific Ocean, but in the post 9/11 world there are new enemies, and new threats to our space superiority. George W. Bush has tossed his cap over the wall of space, and now he must follow it. However, in order to bring the American people with him, he will have to provide them with an adversary. Cheney's 'special intelligence committee' did a fine job with the war in Iraq, and there's no reason to think he can't do just as well with the space program.
Just imagine President Bush's next speech: My fellow Americans, recent intelligence reports have indicated that al-Qaeda terrorists, with funding from Osama bin-Laden, in conjunction with the Axis of Evil, have landed on the moon and are now employing its resources to develop weapons of mass destruction. I have urged Congress to pass an act, providing NASA with $86 billion to hunt down the evil doers and root them out of their moon craters. We have no choice but to take the war on terror to the moon, to infinity and beyond!
And why shouldn't we believe that al-Qaeda has plans for the moon? We all know that Osama bin-Laden is an eccentric billionaire. He wouldn't be the first eccentric billionaire to buy his way into space. Iran, a key player in the Axis of Evil, could easily have purchased Cold War era Russian space shuttles on the black market, the same way it acquires its nuclear warheads. Once the al Qaeda operatives reached the moon, they could dig a vast network of caves and spider-holes to harvest the rocket fuel components and refine them into explosives.
Finally, exploiting the low gravity of the moon, the al Qaeda operatives could cheaply launch kamikaze space shuttles towards the United States and other members of The Coalition. Rocket fuel, breathable air, cheaper space flight... they could be ours, or they could be a tool of the enemy. The threat, my friends is very real, and our task is very clear: we must colonize the moon, lest it become the outstretched arm of terror ready to strangle the free world!
All ancillary concerns like jobs for Americans, affordable health care, quality education and a balanced budget, would immediately drop off the American consciousness when they learned of the terrorist threat! Lovers and haters of Bush across the country would join hands in support of the prime American directive: winning. For Americans, winning can come at any price so long as the victory is certain and the conquest is vast. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein was weakened by years of sanctions, and was ready to be swept away and replaced by high quality, competitive, American corporations like Halliburton. On the moon, all keeps America from the glory of conquest and riches of rocket fuel and oxygen is a measly little al-Quaeda moon base. What true blooded, patriotic American wouldn't pay $86 or even $186 billion to see it taken out?
Andrew Waugh is a Trinity junior. His column appears every other Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.