[Op-ed] The Eye of the Moon is Watching You
It began with a conscious whir, vapor trails of flaming oxygen fuel scattering into the precipice of the upper atmosphere nestled above Cape Canaveral, Florida. Crowds gathered in unprecedented droves outside the perimeter of the present-day Kennedy Space Center, witnessing a trio of air force pilots and engineers march into the stratosphere on what was perceived to be the ephemeral suicide pact. Of course, this is referring to the indistinguishable singular encapsulated achievement of America, The Apollo Space Program.
Much like the God Apollo atop his flaming chariot propelling the blazing sun forward across the sky, the program propelled America to the forefront of the astronomical community. The world tuned in, with a record 850 million people watching intently as the Apollo 11 Lander made its descent onto the lunar surface, leading to the pinnacle achievement of human expedition and, above all, repeating it a few more times until Apollo 17 returned to Earth in 1972.
American engineering, science, craftsmanship and collective intellect triumphed in the wake of this singular moment in human history. The space race concluded, bankrupting the Soviet Union’s space sector. The cloud ceiling of space shattered as the sound of a Saturn V rocket propelled through it in Mach 3, breaking and tearing apart this seemingly impossible dream and gifting scientists, civilians and their children with a sense of idealism and thunderous momentum. So, why did we stop?
The long awaited return to the Moon has dangled within the periphery of the scientific community and NASA bureaucrats since the premature disbandment of the Apollo missions, namely revolving around a set of key questions that would all need to be addressed and resolved in order to move forward and actually return to the moon, while avoiding and circumnavigating roadblocks of the past missions.
The first of these questions delve into how the international scientific community would have to operate effectively and proceed with a mission that would further humanity’s knowledge of the moon and therefore, necessitate a return to the barren, unforgivingly airless hellscape of titanium laden moondust.
Secondly, there remains the question of properly integrating and adapting modern astronomical equipment and technology in order to suit the agendas formatted by, presumably, the international space exploration community at large. While this may appear daunting, given the passage of time since humanity’s last trip to the Moon, NASA has largely maintained a steady hand in researching and developing relevant engineering to necessitate a return trip. They have even gone as far as to allocate grants for graduate students hoping to design innovative technologies that have the potential to be utilized in future space programs.
Lastly, the final category of questions has less to do with the theoretical planning of a hypothetical return trip, but rather, it deals entirely with the reason behind the original Apollo program’s demise: funding and politics. The original program was gutted prior to the planning of the proposed actual final mission of the program, Apollo 18, as budgetary constraints and post-Vietnam politics plagued the American social landscape, particularly as the mid 1970’s approached, with a looming economic recession in tow, diverting the focus of the public away from scientific and intellectual achievement in favor of economic and fiscal agendas and rhetoric. Simply put, the society of counterculture that forged the humanitarian public interest in conservation, environmentalism and astronomical exploration had fallen to the wayside, dissolved into the fabric of an updated terms of service clause within the social contract of a rapidly shifting and dynamic era of human society. Unfortunately, much of the political gridlock and public disinterest in America remains as the core roadblocks preventing the long-anticipated return to the Moon.
Now, after this brief history crash course, the question remains: What can we, as members of society, do to reignite both public and bureaucratic interest in our cratered and lonesome satellite? Well, there is a refreshing plethora of routes to take in order to increase public interest, especially given how drastically different our world has become in the last decade alone in regards to energy, transportation and consumerism alone.
Our moon is rich in natural metal ores and rare-earth metals, which, while currently heavily regulated and prohibited in mass energy production, could serve as a sustainable and efficient clean energy alternative to fossil fuels and pollutant industries, which has recently garnered significant attention from venture capitalists and business tycoons like Elon Musk and Richard Brenson.
While the science behind rare-earth fuels has frequently suggested that the hypothetical utilization of rare-earth fuels is safe, efficient and readily available, the politics surrounding these metals has suffered from years of lobbying from fossil fuel companies, pushing the prospect of this shift in energy production from the limelight of socioeconomic conversation. Our best course of action is to steer that conversation back into the grasp of consumers. Here’s how we can do exactly that.
We have the tools of social media to establish trends, market the aforementioned trends and impact the values of various products with our digital conversations across all platforms of social media. With Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Tiktok and Snapchat at our disposal, current generations have the capacity to mount a movement in favor of recognizing these fuels and proving their worth through outspoken opinions and likes on a screen.
As silly as it may sound, our actions on the internet are capable of precipitating change, so long as it is profitable to the various corporations that own America. Not only are rare-earth metals and renewable energy incredibly profitable, but they are also phenomenally energy dense without relying on nuclear fission. The single largest roadblock preventing the expansion of the human race, and therefore, the survival of the human race, is our indifference towards an obsolete energy sector that no longer efficiently suits the needs of consumers effectively anymore.
We need to change and adapt, or we will die on Earth as we wallow in this indifference. Our oceans are rising at exponentially unprecedented rates, with habitats, deforestation and ecological systems beyond the capacity to withstand our society’s gluttonous consumption of finite global resources. To combat this, we can work by sharing posts on digital media among our followers and platforms, while simply bringing up the devastating consequences of our current trajectory towards mass extinction. There is no reason not to start right away, for the future depends on us.
