The Next Giant Leap For Mankind

60 Minutes Reports On NASA's Plans To Return Men To The Moon In Preparation For A Manned Flight To Mars

(CBS)  This segment was originally broadcast on April 6, 2008. It was updated on July 25, 2008.

NASA is serious, very serious, about launching the most difficult mission ever attempted by the human race: putting an astronaut on Mars. The voyage will cover hundreds of millions of miles and take two-and-a-half years for the roundtrip. It sounds like science fiction.

To make it scientific fact, the United States needs to first visit familiar terrain - the moon.

It’s been nearly 40 years since Neil Armstrong took one giant leap for mankind and almost as long since the American public was truly captivated by the space program. You may not know it, but as 60 Minutes correspondent Bob Simon first reported this spring, the journey to send humans back to the moon and beyond has already begun.

---

From the mountains of Utah to the factory floors of Cleveland, from the space center in Houston to the marshes of Virginia, spacesuits are being tested, rockets are being fired, and capsules are being designed. The United States is once again aiming to launch astronauts to the moon and yes, even, to Mars.

"What’s impossible? What can’t we do if we wanna do it badly enough?" asks Gene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon. He calls his trip on Apollo 17 a visit to God’s front porch. He says anything seemed achievable in those days.

"When I came back from the moon in ’72, [I] stood on my soapbox and said, ‘We’re not only going back to the moon, we’re gonna be on our way to Mars by the turn of the century.' I believed it with my whole heart. But my glass has been half empty for the last 30 years. Now, it’s half full."

It’s half full because NASA is returning to what Cernan calls the romance of space: dramatic human missions to other worlds.

What will propel the astronauts is the new Ares rockets, but they won’t be ready until 2015.

"A lot of people don’t understand. They say, ‘Why can’t we go to the moon, we've already been there.' Well, we can’t really roll up the garage door and dust off the Saturn V rockets. That whole infrastructure was dismantled after the Apollo program," says Dr. Rick Gilbrech, NASA’s exploration chief.

The decision to dismantle Apollo and to cancel possible future trips to places like Mars was made during the Nixon era. Dr. Mike Griffin, NASA's current director, says that was wrong. "It has to rank as one of the colossal mistakes in history," he says.

And that mistake, Griffin says, led to the Space Shuttle, which he believes doesn’t generate as much excitement because it never leaves the Earth’s orbit. Griffin says Americans are bored by the space program because NASA has run a boring space program. The Space Shuttle will finally be retired in two years. In its place will be the new exploration program called "Constellation."

There is no question Mars is the ultimate goal, but why return to the moon? Why not go straight to Mars?

"If we didn’t have a moon, we would. And we could. But it would be much riskier," Griffin says.

[gfalbel]

In response to your sector on the manned mission to Mars, the following portions of an email I sent to DR. WENDELL MENDELL, DIRECTOR OF MANNED LUNAR PROGRAMS AT NASA HOUSTON IS APPLICABLE:

This is voice from the past. As you may remember, we worked together on the Lunar IR Radiometer on the Apollo 17 Command Module. I understand that you are managing a manned lunar mission as a way station to Mars exploration. I''m sorry, but I consider the proposed manned Mars exploration part a massive, trillion dollar waste that will never be funded by US taxpayers.

For over 28 years I have been proposing a lunar solar power station, which could transmit 5.3 trillion kilowatt-hours per year (equivalent to 3 billion barrels of oil) to the earth on a 24/7 basis indefinitely using microwaves, which pass through cloud cover. This was fully evaluated by NASA/DOE 1977-1980 studies. More importantly, I show how this can be paid for without any increase in US taxes, while at the same time stopping global warming and reducing US taxes, without any job layoffs, or change in life styles on anyone''s part, by re-directing a portion of the bloated defenst budget to this useful project, with the funds going to the same aerospace contractors receiving them under the current defense budget.

I firmly believe that this approach is the only realistic way to reduce or reverse global warming, which in 50 years will cause calamities that will make a trillion dollars look like pocket change!

[mobythedog1]

NASA is the world''s largest PR organization. This space thing is merely a sideline. Why travel across the lake to go fishing? Stay here and focus on the many oceans and seas. Doing that will give a far greater return on our investment for many generations.

[mobythedog1]

NASA is the world''s largest PR organization. This space thing is merely a sideline. Why travel across the lake to go fishing? Stay here and focus on the many oceans and seas. Doing that will give a far greater return on our investment for many generations.

[mobythedog1]

NASA is the world''s largest PR organization. This space thing is merely a sideline. Why travel across the lake to go fishing? Stay here and focus on the many oceans and seas. Doing that will give a far greater return on our investment for many generations.

[debbiepvb]

The government is certainly setting a fine example for its citizens, spend even if you can''t afford it. Our country lacks affordable health care, lack of mental health care for returning vets, and many more programs too numerous to count. After your segment on: "A Bigger Leap for Mankind," I read an article in the St. Petersburg Times about Dallas Carter who chose death over poverty and hunger . . . tell that to the politicians voting for a Mars walk! Just because we are capable of sending humans to Mars doesn''t mean we should.

[bobdennis55]

please scroll from radiOrat, re "awesome", and "oops" to read my comment, as I only have 1 posted comment. thank you

[radi0rat]

oops - I apologize. I kept getting this idiot message "The Publish button will be enabled shortly. We have temporarily disabled it so everyone has an opportunity to comment."

I apologize for accidental multiple postings.

[radi0rat]

AWESOME!
I''m so glad NASA is finally going to mean something more than Need Another Seven Astronauts. Joke aside, I actually was WATCHING LIVE when The Challenger exploded. I did not lose faith. If I''d had what it takes, I would have signed up to replace one of those astronauts the next morning!
Its pathetic that my average tax money going to NASA is 15c/day ... space exploration to my mind is part of the purpose of being a sentient being capable of toolmaking and abstract thought and writing etc.
Is fullfilling my purpose worth a measely $54 (less than ONE tank of gas?) a year? YES YES YES YES YES! Considering some of the really disgusting things our government spends many times $54/year on, DEFINITELY WORTH FIVE TIMES AS MUCH NOW.
Nothing beats GOING somewhere to explore and understand. And frankly, humans are doing a lousy job as shepherds of Planet Dirt. We need a backup!
WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE QUESTION: CBS: Why didn''t you asks about the "Space Elevator" ? Once built it would literally take a few thousand watts of electric energy to tow people and cargo into orbit several times a DAY! And no more riding a barely controlled explosion into orbit with all the pollution involved. That''s what we should be building, not a new Saturn 5, ver 2.0

[radi0rat]

AWESOME!
I''m so glad NASA is finally going to mean something more than Need Another Seven Astronauts. Joke aside, I actually was WATCHING LIVE when The Challenger exploded. I did not lose faith. If I''d had what it takes, I would have signed up to replace one of those astronauts the next morning!
Its pathetic that my average tax money going to NASA is 15c/day ... space exploration to my mind is part of the purpose of being a sentient being capable of toolmaking and abstract thought and writing etc.
Is fullfilling my purpose worth a measely $54 (less than ONE tank of gas?) a year? YES YES YES YES YES! Considering some of the really disgusting things our government spends many times $54/year on, DEFINITELY WORTH FIVE TIMES AS MUCH NOW.
Nothing beats GOING somewhere to explore and understand. And frankly, humans are doing a lousy job as shepherds of Planet Dirt. We need a backup!
WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE QUESTION: CBS: Why didn''t you asks about the "Space Elevator" ? Once built it would literally take a few thousand watts of electric energy to tow people and cargo into orbit several times a DAY! And no more riding a barely controlled explosion into orbit with all the pollution involved. That''s what we should be building, not a new Saturn 5, ver 2.0

[radi0rat]

AWESOME!
I''m so glad NASA is finally going to mean something more than Need Another Seven Astronauts. Joke aside, I actually was WATCHING LIVE when The Challenger exploded. I did not lose faith. If I''d had what it takes, I would have signed up to replace one of those astronauts the next morning!
Its pathetic that my average tax money going to NASA is 15c/day ... space exploration to my mind is part of the purpose of being a sentient being capable of toolmaking and abstract thought and writing etc.
Is fullfilling my purpose worth a measely $54 (less than ONE tank of gas?) a year? YES YES YES YES YES! Considering some of the really disgusting things our government spends many times $54/year on, DEFINITELY WORTH FIVE TIMES AS MUCH NOW.
Nothing beats GOING somewhere to explore and understand. And frankly, humans are doing a lousy job as shepherds of Planet Dirt. We need a backup!
WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE QUESTION: CBS: Why didn''t you asks about the "Space Elevator" ? Once built it would literally take a few thousand watts of electric energy to tow people and cargo into orbit several times a DAY! And no more riding a barely controlled explosion into orbit with all the pollution involved. That''s what we should be building, not a new Saturn 5, ver 2.0