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.
