Fifty years after the Apollo moon landing, should America focus its space efforts on returning humans to the moon? Or should it concentrate on exploring new worlds, like Mars?

NASA chief Jim Bridenstine says we don’t have to choose.

President Donald Trump is asking the American space agency to land humans back on the moon by 2024, four years earlier than previously planned. The job of selling that mission to the American public — and persuading Congress to fund it – belongs to Bridenstine, a former Republican congressman from Oklahoma with little prior space experience who took over as head of the agency in April 2018.

In some ways, Bridenstine was an unusual pick for the job. Prior to leading NASA and serving three terms in Congress, Bridenstine was a Navy fighter pilot who flew combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and served as executive director of the Tulsa Air and Space Museum. He is the first person to lead the agency who isn’t considered a space professional.

Amid deep discord in the aerospace world about the value of returning to the moon versus pushing on to Mars, Bridenstine is charting a middle course, making the argument that the two goals don’t need to be in conflict. In an interview with POLITICO in NASA’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., Bridenstine argued that going to the moon will pave the way to Mars safely and sustainably, which he stressed is still the long-term goal of the agency.

“The most important reason to go to the moon is because it is the best way to get to Mars,” he said. “We have to figure out how we live and work on another world using the resources of that world for long periods of time. The moon is the proving ground for that.”

Jim Bridenstine, top, talks to farmers at the 2019 World Ag Expo about how technologies originally developed for space are now helping farmers back on Earth, such as the drone, bottom, that is used to monitor crop health. | David McNew/Getty Images

Bridenstine doesn’t think much of the argument that the government should be spending more to improve the lives of those on Earth instead of exploring space; investment in space has paid dividends in fields ranging from medicine to communications to agriculture, he insisted.

“We are increasing crop yields right now, and we’re going to be able to feed more of the world than ever before because of NASA technology,” Bridenstine said, referencing how farmers can use imagery from space to track crop health. “My message is, a small investment in NASA has implications for humankind generations from now.”

This transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Jacqueline Feldscher: We’ve been to the moon. Why should Americans get excited about going back?

Jim Bridenstine: First, there’s a lot of scientific value. We know more about the moon today than we did in the 1960s and the 1970s. For example, back then, we thought the moon was bone dry. We learned in 2009 that there’s hundreds of millions of tons of water ice at the south pole of the moon. Water ice represents water to drink. It also is hydrogen and oxygen, which is rocket fuel. It’s the same rocket fuel that powered the space shuttles. It’s the same rocket fuel that will power the rocket that will take us to the moon to begin with.

Second, because the moon does not have an active atmosphere, an active geology, or an active hydrosphere, it is a repository of billions of years of activity that is frozen in time. We can get the science that tells us how our solar system got formed. We can learn a lot about the sun from the moon, because we have subatomic particles that are impacting the moon all the time. The far side of the moon is extremely quiet from an electromagnetic spectrum perspective, which means we can use large wire antennas that would be able to see very, very low frequency radio waves from deep space. In other words, maybe even see back to the first light in the universe.

But the most important reason to go to the moon is because it is the best way to get to Mars. When we go to Mars, we have to be there for two years. Earth and Mars are only lined up once every 26 months. That means when we go to Mars, we have to be willing to stay there for a couple of years. We have to figure out how we live and work on another world using the resources of that world for long periods of time. The moon is the proving ground for that.

Q&A

We hosted a live chat on Reddit about the U.S.'s efforts to go back to the moon. See highlights from the conversation here.

The other thing that I think is important, from a very personal perspective, is that our astronaut corps today is very diverse. That wasn’t the case in the 1960s. When we think back to how astronauts were selected in the 1960s, it was fighter pilots, who became test pilots, who became astronauts, and there were no opportunities for women back then. I have an 11-year-old daughter. I want her to see her having all of the opportunities that I had. I think this would be a great way to demonstrate that America is going to go to the moon with all of America, and really show that our country is very different today than it was in the 1960s, in a positive way.

JF: Are the government and the public really comfortable with the risk that comes with sending humans to the moon again?

JB: I think so. There is no doubt that this is a very difficult business. There is also no doubt that it is in the human DNA to explore and discover and to want more science and information. … That goes for how we discovered the New World. It goes for why we went to the moon in the first place. And I think this is the next step in the next chapter of discovery.

In each case, historically, there was risk. We are going to do everything in our power to make sure that our people are safe. But when we do these activities, we are aware that we are inventing brand-new things, and we are sending people to destinations where people have never gone before, in extremely harsh environments.

JF: How do you persuade skeptical lawmakers to fund the human mission to the moon in 2024?

JB: I think that both sides of the aisle understand this: investments that get made into NASA return exponentially. We can talk about all kinds of capabilities that have improved and elevated the human condition, capabilities that were born from the Apollo program.

Space-based communications are what has enabled things like DirectTV, Dish Network, internet broadband from space. I come from Oklahoma. A lot of rural areas of Oklahoma, if there’s not internet broadband from space, there is no internet broadband. People talk about XM Radio. The ability to send high-resolution motion picture images all over the country very quickly for national security purposes, those kind of things, are all available because of technologies that were born from this little agency called NASA.

Communications is just a piece of it. People are familiar with how we navigate with GPS, how we produce food. We are increasing crop yields right now, and we’re going to be able to feed more of the world than ever before because of NASA technology. ... That technology is the same technology that we use to map the moon, and that we use to map Mars.

NASA didn’t have on its agenda these capabilities when they were created. We had an entirely different agenda. And then these technologies get invented and developed, and then people say, “Well, how can I use that differently? What application could be used for commercially?” And the next thing you know, these industries spin off, and the standards of living for all Americans, and in fact, people all around the world, go up.

So, NASA always has a great return on investment. My message is, a small investment in NASA has implications for humankind generations from now.

JF: You’ve said that going back to the moon has to be an international endeavor, but we’ve also heard language from the president and vice president that we’re in a space race with China to return to the moon.

JB: There is no doubt an element of competition. But if you look at how we are operating in space right now, on the International Space Station, we have 15 nations that are responsible for operating the International Space Station. We have had 103 nations conduct experiments on the International Space Station. We have had astronauts from dozens of countries on the International Space Station.

It is an amazing technological achievement, but it is also an amazing diplomatic achievement. We’re able to do more in space when we have international partners than one nation could do alone. When we go to the moon, it is written in Space Policy Directive 1, signed by the president, that we’re going to go with international partners. We want to take what we have learned from the International Space Station, from a diplomatic perspective, and we want to apply it to the moon.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, right, with the the head of Greece’s space agency, Georgios Mantzouris, left. | Aubrey Gemignani/NASA

NASA will lead. We led on the International Space Station, and we will lead in the future. But we can do more when we partner with other countries, and that’s widely recognized. We intend to do that at the moon. It makes it more sustainable, and it makes it easier to come by resources when others can help us accomplish the objective.

JF: How is the U.S. moon mission different from other efforts to put humans on the moon, like those of China or India?

JB: We are building an architecture where we will have access to any part of the moon, at any time. The first piece of that architecture is what we call “Gateway,” which is a small space station in orbit around the moon. Think of it as a reusable command module. It’s going to be maneuverable with solar-electric propulsion. Back during the Apollo era, we could only have access to the equatorial regions. Now we’re going to have access to the polar regions. Gateway gives us more access to more parts of the moon than ever before, and it is sustainable. It drives down the cost.

The big difference between what we’re doing and what some others are doing is that we’re leading a coalition of nations, that we’re going to go sustainably, and that we want access to every part of the moon, at any time, with landers, robots, rovers and humans.

JF: How do you go to the moon in 2024, while still maintaining the International Space Station and not losing sight of Mars in the future?

JB: As we send our astronauts to the moon, we certainly understand that we’re going to need more resources, which is why we’ve made this amendment to the budget request. We are also moving rapidly to commercialize low-Earth orbit in general. We’ve had a lot of success already with commercial resupply of the International Space Station. We don’t purchase, own and operate the rockets that resupply the ISS. We buy the service from commercial operators. That’s driving down cost. It’s increasing access.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine tours SpaceX’s launch complex at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. | Aubrey Gemignani/NASA via Getty Images

The next step is commercial crew. We are excited that this year we have an opportunity to finish commercial crew and launch American astronauts on American rockets from American soil again for the first time since the retirement of the space shuttles. We have the commercial crew program that is underway.

Where we’re working now is commercializing low-Earth orbit with habitation, using the International Space Station as the tool to prove the markets that will enable commercialization of habitation in low-Earth orbit. Some of the markets include pharmaceuticals [including testing drugs in microgravity, which speeds up the timeline for experiments], material sciences. The idea that we’re using adult stem cells to print human organs in 3D [in microgravity so the structures don’t collapse on themselves.] That’s one of the things I’m most excited about because it will save lives on Earth in a magnificent way.

Each one of these markets gets developed, and then we have private industry that raises their own capital, they invest their own money, they take their own risks in order to achieve this sustainable, commercial architecture in low-Earth orbit. Once that happens, NASA becomes one customer of many customers in low-Earth orbit. We have numerous providers that are competing on cost and innovation in low-Earth orbit.

Then we can take all of these resources and we can take them to the moon for the development of a sustainable lunar architecture, and in fact, a lunar outpost with the intent, again, to drive down costs, to commercialize, to prove the market, and then ultimately let commercial industry take over there. Then we can take the resources, again, to Mars. … What NASA does is, we go first, we prove technology, we retire risk, and then we allow commercial industry to follow.

JF: How should the cost of the moon mission be shared between the U.S. government, international governments and the commercial sector?

JB: It’s going to be divided, certainly. When we go the moon right now, there’s no commercial capability at the moon. What we are asking our commercial partners to do is invest with us, side by side, with an intent that they would one day have customers that are not NASA.

We’re not purchasing, owning and operating the hardware. We’re buying the service.

We will invest in that hardware, but we expect them to make investments in that hardware as well. The idea is they’re making those investments because they know that there will be customers that are not NASA. Those customers could be international customers, could be foreign governments. Those customers could also be tourists.

It’s also important for us … to bring in our international partners, as well. We believe this is a way that we can lead the world, in a very positive, diplomatic, soft-power kind of way, where all nations working together can do far more than any one nation could do alone.

JF: How is NASA addressing China’s aggressive plan to industrialize the moon?

JB: We’re really two different countries operating on very independent approaches. From our perspective at NASA, we do science, we do discovery, we do exploration. We’re very interested in what they achieve. When they landed on the far side of the moon, we took keen interest in that. The science that they’re getting is science that we think is valuable to all of humanity.

It is also true that we have to be careful because the law is very clear about who we can partner with and who we can’t partner with. Those decisions are made above my pay grade, by policymakers that write law, and by folks that do national security kind of work.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine speaks with pilots and engineers working on the Orion crew module which is expected to carry astronauts back to the moon in 2024. | Aubrey Gemignani/NASA

JF: Canada is the only international partner who has signed on so far. What is holding others back?

JB: It’s a timing thing. The European Space Agency has its ministerial in November, where all of the nations that are part of European Space Agency get together and make determinations as to what their next investment is going to be. The timing for Canada happened sooner. Working with Japan, I think their budget comes out in April of next year. I’ll be making a trip out there later this year to build that partnership for our next generation of lunar activities.

Of course, Russia has a keen interest in this, as well. I’m not 100 percent sure on their timing and what that looks like, but I know I’ve had conversations with the head of Roscosmos, the Russian space agency, and they are definitely interested in the lunar activities.

All the partners I just mentioned are our partners on the International Space Station. Those are the ones that we anticipate will be with us.

Beyond that, I think there’s a lot of very exciting developments. Countries like India are interested in the moon. Israel had a mission to the moon that wasn’t successful, but they’ve got another one now that they’re developing. Australia is interested in the moon. United Arab Emirates is interested in the moon. Even countries like Brazil. In fact, the minister of science in Brazil now is an astronaut that trained here in the United States, flew on the International Space Station. So Brazil is interested in how they get involved in the space program, as well.

There are a lot of international partners that we can bring in that we haven’t had before. I really think that there’s a lot of opportunity in front of us.

Authors: