Robert Gerard Hunt Stories. Commentary. Endorphins. Updated every Friday.

Taking A Giant Step For Granted

In an age of scientific miracles and technological wonders, familiarity breeds indifference. Consider the diminished esteem of NASA and the U.S. space program. According to the 2010 Census, the median age of our population is 37.2 years, which means that a majority of our citizens have never known life before manned space exploration. It's an immense demographic wedge that has never pondered the impossibility of putting a man on the Moon, because the mission was already accomplished. For most Americans, the visage of astronauts hopping across the lunar surface is not a personal recollection but rather the stuff of history books and grainy documentaries. Given the poor performance of U.S. students in math and science, and acknowledging the lack of curricular emphasis on the history of space exploration, it's a safe assumption that most of our population does not fully appreciate the enormity of our accomplishments.

It is nearly inexplicable that our nation should invest in, develop, and implement the technology necessary for manned lunar exploration only to abandon its application a mere three years after the first moonwalk. Today's children, upon learning of the heroic feats of Armstrong, Aldrin, and Collins, are understandably puzzled by this intuitively backwards progression. They are aware that modern technology far surpasses that of the past, which leads one to wonder why we are not doing bigger and better things on the Moon. Of course, there is an explanation, and it is primarily the issue of money and the degree to which our representative government is willing to allocate funds toward further exploration of the Moon.

There is a persistent argument against manned spaceflight that claims the potential benefits are far outweighed by the enormous expense and inescapable risk to human life. This philosophy has resulted in our current state of affairs, with the very last Space Shuttle launch scheduled for today and no clear domestic program to put Americans in space in the future. Instead, our government seeks to put the responsibility for space transportation in the hands of private industry, assuming that entrepreneurship and free market competition will produce timely and acceptable alternatives. Meanwhile, we are left without a means to send our astronauts into space unless we depend exclusively upon the Russian Soyuz program.

To which the average American, I sadly assume, responds, "So what?"

Such national ennui would have been unthinkable in the summer of 1969, when the world was transfixed by the live broadcast of Apollo 11's success. Admittedly, times were different, and some of America's pride and celebration stemmed from a reassuring conviction that we would not succumb to Soviet dominance. Nevertheless, conquering the Moon was a scientific watershed that transcended politics, a glorious culmination of human inquiry that redefined the limits of knowledge and literally expanded the terrain upon which we roam. Unfortunately, that transcendence was all too brief, and one nation reaching the moon became an end in itself rather than a inspiring springboard for further lunar exploration.

Ultimately, the perceived value of our space program determines its ranking among many national priorities. Some say that we have no business frittering away our limited resources looking up to the skies when so many citizens are suffering from poverty and other social ills. Even during the Apollo program, protesters asserted that the dollars burnt up by NASA would be better spent helping those on the ground. The same point could be made, however, concerning almost anything our government funds beyond barest necessities, from sponsorship of the arts to the establishment and maintenance of national parks. Our social inequities exist due to a complex set of variables and are not likely to be eliminated no matter how much of our budget is allocated toward eradicating them. I certainly do not advocate ignoring these problems, but neither would I advise sacrificing other worthwhile endeavors.

As for the great risk to human life, that is a factor that is as evident to astronauts as it is to soldiers, police officers, firefighters, and anyone else whose occupation is necessarily dangerous. Those who fly into space willingly assume the risk. The argument for unmanned space exploration is really more of an economic concern, as it costs a great deal more to engineer passenger safety, let alone pay the astronauts.

Who knows what we might have accomplished by now had we not given up on the Moon? It's not unreasonable to think that we might have built a permanent base on the lunar surface. Neither is a launching platform for a future Mars mission such an outrageous idea. Perhaps we would have delivered the equipment necessary to drill for core samples at unprecedented depths, revealing subsurface secrets that remain a mystery to us today. Maybe we would have deployed a vast array of solar cells and generated enough energy to significantly reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. And we simply cannot even speculate on the possible technological ramifications of discovering elements or phenomena that are currently unknown to exist.

Alas, we do not know what we may have missed, and with the imminent demise of the Space Shuttle program, we place ourselves one step further back from where we once were.

Will we ever return to the Moon or someday step foot on Mars?  Craig Nelson, author of Rocket Men: The Epic Story of the First Men on the Moon (Viking, 2009), presents flight director Gerry Griffin's account of a meeting attended by Neil Armstrong at the conclusion of the Apollo program. Armstrong drew four curves on a blackboard and labelled them Leadership, Threat, Good Economy and Peace. The first man on the Moon theorized that the convergence of the four curves produces the unique environment that allows for programs as bold, innovative, daring and expensive as Apollo. If he's right, it may be some time indeed before we truly honor our nation's manned space exploration heritage.

If only all of the most technologically advanced nations of the world would pool their resources into a global effort to expand manned space exploration for our common good, we might overcome this stagnation. Given the nature of international politics, that level of sincere cooperation seems impossible. Then again, so did putting a man on the Moon.

PHP Freelancer