Exploring the Moon beyond its poles is about to get a whole lot more strategic—and controversial. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are assembling a committee to tackle a bold question: Where should human explorers go on the Moon to achieve the most groundbreaking science over the next decade? This isn’t just about planting flags; it’s about unlocking the Moon’s secrets in ways that only humans can. But here’s where it gets controversial: Do humans truly offer advantages over robotic missions, and if so, where and why?
The committee’s mission is twofold. First, they’ll craft a detailed strategy and rank the most scientifically valuable destinations across the Moon’s non-polar regions. These sorties—short missions involving two crew members conducting 1-4 surface activities—will be carefully planned to maximize impact. For instance, should we prioritize sites that address a single, high-priority objective, or does exploring multiple locations in sequence yield greater benefits? And this is the part most people miss: The order in which we visit these sites could dramatically influence the outcomes, with earlier missions potentially paving the way for more complex exploration later.
For each chosen destination, the committee will dive deep into the science. They’ll align objectives with the Origins, Worlds, and Life (OWL) report and NASA’s Moon to Mars goals, specifying what measurements need to be taken on-site and which samples must return to Earth. Critically, they’ll justify why human explorers are essential—a point that’s sure to spark debate. Is it their adaptability, their ability to troubleshoot, or something else entirely? Additionally, they’ll consider pre-placed assets like tools or robotic hardware that could enhance human missions.
Resource utilization is another hot topic. The committee will identify what materials or resources at each site could support future missions, from water ice to regolith. Finally, their report will include traceability matrices and visual summaries to make the strategy accessible and actionable.
But here’s the question we’re all thinking: Are we underestimating the role of humans in space exploration, or is this a costly redundancy in the age of advanced robotics? Let us know your thoughts in the comments—this is one debate that’s just getting started.
