Moon question

It has been more than 30 years since the last humans stood on the surface of the moon. Why haven't there been any more manned flights since Apollo 17's December 1972 landing?

Last week, NASA outlined its $104 billion plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2018. The good news: NASA says it can pay for the program out of its current $16 billion annual budget without asking for additional funding for the lunar landing. But NASA administrator Michael Griffin offered only that the space program is "a long-term investment in our future" as a reason for making the trip.

Many Americans are concerned right now about other ways their tax dollars could be spent on. With billions of dollars of hurricane relief awaiting distribution by federal, state and local authorities, some might wonder if spending money on a moon trip is prudent right now.

Griffin says it is. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay says it is. House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert says it is. President Bush said it was last year when he proposed the lunar initiative.

If it is, let's hear why. Someone at NASA or in Congress or at the White House needs to tell us why a moon mission is the best use of more than $100 billion.

In response to concerns that short-term needs such as disaster relief should not stand in the way of NASA's long-term "investment in the future," Griffin said, "When we have a hurricane, we don't cancel the Air Force. We don't cancel the Navy. We're not going to cancel NASA."

Eliminating the space agency and taking 13 years and all that money to go to the moon are two different things. And comparing NASA to the nation's military is a stretch.

There must be a good reason we haven't sent anyone to the moon since 1972. Perhaps Griffin could tell us what it is.