A Space Future Both Visionary and Grounded

In “Taking Aristotle to the Moon and Beyond” (Issues, Spring 2024), G. Ryan Faith argues that space exploration needs a philosophical foundation to reach its full potential and inspire humanity. He calls for NASA to embrace deeper questions of purpose, values, and meaning to guide its long-term strategy.

Some observers would argue that NASA, as a technically focused agency, already grapples with questions of purpose and meaning through its scientific pursuits and public outreach. Imposing a formal “philosopher corps” could be seen as redundant or even counterproductive, diverting scarce resources from more pressing needs. Additionally, if philosophical approaches become too academic or esoteric, they risk alienating key stakeholders and the broader public. There are also valid concerns about the potential for philosophical frameworks to be misused to justify unethical decisions or to shield space activities from public scrutiny.

Yet despite these challenges, there is a compelling case for why a more robust philosophical approach could benefit space exploration in the long run. By articulating a clear and inspiring vision, grounded in shared values and long-term thinking, space organizations can build a sturdier foundation for weathering political and economic vicissitudes. Philosophy can provide a moral compass for navigating thorny issues such as planetary protection, extraterrestrial resource utilization, and settling other celestial bodies. And it may not be a big lift if small steps are taken. For example, NASA could create an external advisory committee on the ethics of space and fund collaborative research grants—NASA’s Office of Technology Policy and Strategy is already examining ethical issues in the Artemis moon exploration program, and the office could serve as one place within NASA to take point. In addition, NASA could bring university-based scholars and philosophers to the agency on a rotating basis, expand public outreach to include philosophical discussions, and host international workshops and conferences on space ethics and philosophy.

Ultimately, the key is to strike a judicious balance between philosophical reflection and practical action. Space agencies should create space for pondering big-picture questions, while remaining laser-focused on scientific, technological, and operational imperatives. Philosophical thinking should be deployed strategically to inform and guide, not to dictate or obstruct. This means fostering a culture of openness, humility, and pragmatism, where philosophical insights are continually tested against real-world constraints and updated in light of new evidence.

As the United States approaches its return to the moon, we have a rare opportunity to shape a future that is both visionary and grounded. By thoughtfully harnessing the power of philosophy while staying anchored in practical realities, we can chart a wiser course for humanity’s journey into the cosmos. It will require striking a delicate balance, but the potential rewards are immense—not just for space exploration, but for our enduring quest to understand our place in the grand sweep of existence. The universe beckons us to ponder big questions, and to act with boldness and resolve.

Bhavya Lal

G. Ryan Faith’s emphasis on ethics in space exploration is well-met given contemporary concerns regarding artificial intelligence and the recent NASA report on ethics in the Artemis program. As we know from decades of study, the very technologies we hope will be emancipatory more often carry our biases with them into the world. We should expect this to be the case in lunar and interplanetary exploration too. Without clear guidelines and mechanisms for ensuring adherence to an ethical polestar, humans will certainly reproduce the problems we had hoped to escape off-world.

Yet, as a social scientist, I find it strange to assume that embracing a single goal, or “telos,” might supersede political considerations, especially when it comes to funding mechanisms. NASA is a federal agency. The notion of exploration “for all humankind” certainly illuminates and inspires, but ultimately NASA’s mandate is more mundane: to further the United States’ civilian interests in space. The democratic process as practiced by Congress requires annual submission of budgets and priorities to be approved or denied by committee, invoking the classic time inconsistency problem. In such a context, telic and atelic virtues alike are destined to become embroiled and contested in the brouhaha of domestic politics. Until we agree to lower democratic barriers to long-term planning, the philosophers will not carry the day.

Better grounding for a philosophy of space exploration, then, might arise from an ethical approach to political virtues, such as autonomy, voice, and the form of harmony that arises from good governance (what Aristotle calls eudaimonia). In my own work with spacecraft teams and among the planetary science community, I have witnessed many grounded debates as moments of statecraft, some better handled than others. All are replete with the recognizable tensions of democracy: from fights for the inclusion of minority constituents, to pushback against oligarchy, to the challenge of appropriately managing dissenting opinions. It is possible, then, to see these contestations at NASA over its ambitions not as compulsion “to act as philosophers on the spot,” in Faith’s words, but as examples of virtues playing out in the democratic polis. In this case, we should not leapfrog these essential debates, but ensure they give appropriate voice to their constituents to produce the greatest good for the greatest number.

Additionally, there is no need to assume an Aristotelian frame when there are so many philosophies to choose from. The dichotomies that animate Western philosophies are anathema to adherents of several classical, Indigenous, and contemporary philosophies, who find ready binaries far too reductive. We might instead imagine a philosophy of space exploration that enhances our responsibility to entanglements and interconnectivities: between Earth and moon, human and robotic explorers, environments terrestrial and beyond. Not only would this guiding philosophy be open to more people, cultures, and nations, and better hope to escape “terrestrial biases” by rejecting a ready distinction between Earth and space. It would also hold NASA accountable for maintaining an ethical approach to Earth-space relations throughout its exploration activities, regardless of the inevitable shifts in domestic politics.

Janet Vertesi

G. Ryan Faith succinctly puts his finger on exactly what ails NASA’s human spaceflight program—a lack of telos, the Greek word for purpose. In this concept, you are either working toward a telos, or your efforts are atelic. In the case of the Apollo program, NASA had a very specific teleological goal: to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth (my personal favorite part of President Kennedy’s vision) by the end of 1969.

This marked a specific goal, or “final cause.” The Hubble Space Telescope, on the other hand, is very much atelic. That is, there is no defined endpoint; you could literally study the universe forever.

This philosophical concept is well and good for the Ivory Tower, but it also has a very practical application at the US space agency.

NASA has gone through several iterations of its human moon exploration program since it was reincarnated during the George W. Bush administration as Project Constellation. I cannot tell you how many times someone has asked me, “Now, why are we going to the moon again? Haven’t we been there? Don’t we have enough problems here on Earth? And don’t we have a huge deficit?”

Why yes, we do have a huge deficit. And the world does feel fraught with peril these days, given the situations in Russia, China, and the Middle East. If NASA is to continue to receive significant federal funding for its relatively expensive human exploration program, it needs to have a crisp answer for why exactly we should borrow money to send people to the moon (again).

Ryan brings up an interesting paradox of the Apollo program’s success, namely that “going to the moon eliminated the reason for going to the moon.” And he reminds us that “failing to deliberately engage philosophical debates about values and vision.… risks foundering.”

There are certainly many technical issues the agency needs to grapple with. Do we build a single base on the moon or land in various locations? Do we continue with the Space Launch System rocket, built by Boeing, or switch to the Starship rocket or the much cheaper Falcon Heavy rocket, both built by SpaceX?

But the most important question NASA has to answer is why: why send humans to the moon, risking their lives? Should it be to “land the first woman and first person of color” on the moon, as NASA continuously promotes? Why not explore with robots that are much cheaper and don’t complain nearly as much as astronauts do?

I believe there are compelling answers to these questions. Humans can do things that robots cannot, and sending humans to space is in fact very inspirational. The moon can serve as an important testing ground for flying even deeper into the solar system. But first, the problematic question why demands an answer.

The author would say that JFK’s reasoning was compelling: “We choose to go the moon and do the other things…not because they are easy, but because they are hard.” A great answer in the 1960s. But in the twenty-first century, NASA’s leadership would be well-served to consider Ryan’s article and unleash, in the words of Tom Wolfe, the “power of clarity and vision.”

Terry Virts

G. Ryan Faith provides a thoughtful examination of the philosophical foundations for human space exploration—or rather the lack of such foundations. Human space exploration is where this lack is most acute. Commercial, scientific, and military missions have reasons grounded in economic, research, and national security imperatives. They are grounded in particular communities with shared values and discourse. Supporters of human space exploration are found in diffuse communities with many different motivations, interests, and philosophical approaches.

The end of the Apollo program was a shock to many advocates of human space exploration as they assumed, wrongly, that going to the moon was the beginning of a long-term visionary enterprise. It may yet be seen that way by history, but the Apollo landings resulted from US geopolitical needs during the Cold War. They were a means to a political end, not an end in themselves.

Former NASA administrator Mike Griffin gave an insightful speech in 2007 in which he described real reasons and acceptable reasons for exploring space. Real reasons are individual, matters of the heart and spirit. Acceptable reasons typically involve matters of state, geopolitics, diplomacy, and national power, among other more practical areas. Acceptable reasons are not a façade, but critical to large-scale collective action and the use of public resources. They are the common ground upon which diverse individuals come together to create something bigger than themselves.

It is more than our machines or even astronauts that we send into space, but our values as well. As Faith’s article makes clear, there is value in thinking about philosophy as part of sustainable support for human space exploration. At the same time, the desire for a singular answer can be a temptation to tell others what to do or what to believe. The challenge in space is similar to that of the Founders of the United States: how to have a system of ordered liberty that allows for common purposes while preserving individual freedoms.

As humanity expands into space, I hope the philosophical foundations of that expansion include the values of the Enlightenment that inspired the Founders. In this vein, the National Space Council issued a report in 2010 titled A New Era for Deep Space Exploration and Development that concluded: “At the frontiers of exploration, the United States will continue to lead, as it has always done, in space. If humanity does have a future in space, it should be one in which space is the home of free people.”

Scott Pace