Today is the 40th anniversary of the splashdown, the return to earth of Apollo 11. I was 17 years old on that day and had followed the flights from the days of Ham the "astrochimp". The space program encouraged my interested in science. At CBS, I covered the first flight of the space shuttle in 1981. I applied for the journalist in space program, although I did not make the cut for the semifinals. The program was canceled after the Challenger exploded in 1986.
I would never have expected, back in 1969, that 40 years later we would not have reached Mars and beyond. Today, with the latest in a long series of "return to the Moon" plans under review, we are having the same old arguments about the value of space exploration. I've always thought we explore because of something innate, built in, if you will, to our genetic structure.
But that apparently is not an explanation which satisfies. Christopher Columbus convinced Queen Isabella to fund his voyage with promises of riches from trade routes and new colonies and a great expansion of the Spanish empire. We went to the Moon because we were in a cold war with the Soviet Union. When President Kennedy set the goal we were behind on the "Space Race" battlefront. Once the battle was won, public interest waned. The final three planned Apollo Moon missions were canceled. A joint mission with the Soviets and a space station project, Skylab, failed to rekindle the same degree of public support.
The follow-on program seems to have been purposely designed to be mundane. Even the name, "Space Shuttle" or "Space Transportation System" sounds like it was created by an accountant. In truth the budget watchers did force decisions which, from the advantage of hindsight, proved to be not only economically unsound but actually fatal.
We know now that a one-size-fits-all space strategy is a mistake. We should not send fragile humans into space simply to launch satellites or perform tasks easily accomplished by robot craft. Programs now on the drawing boards will create separate vehicles, one for doing the heavy lifting and another for sending up humans when they are needed. Neither system will put the delicate crew compartment on the side of a rocket, where it can be hit by debris during launch.
These programs are, as always, under review. This means we are trying to figure out if we can pay for them. You can trot out all the usual arguments about stimulating the study of math and science in our young people and you can list all the technologies from medical sensors to fuel cells which were originally developed for the space program. But unless the emotion is there, space remains a hard sell.
The International Space Station, a dubious project from a scientific standpoint, may give us a clue on how to proceed. While the United States and Russia, our old adversary, have born most of the cost, the Europeans and Japanese have made significant contributions. This is a model which can work for the future. I'd ask the Chinese to join as well. Big science is costly and international cooperation is increasingly the answer to funding these projects. It could well be the answer to a return to the Moon and beyond.
On the wall of my home office I have two framed pictures. One, said to be the most reproduced photograph in history, is called "Earthrise". It was taken on the flight of Apollo 8, the first manned flight to orbit the moon. It shows earth, small and beautiful, a marble of white and blue and brown. When I look at it, I am reminded that in spite of the differences between us, which sometimes seem insurmountable, we are all in this together, riding this tiny little piece of rock through the great unknown.
The other picture is known as "Hubble Ultra Deep Field". Taken in 2004 by the Hubble Space Telescope, it is the deepest photograph to date of the visible universe, which means it looks both the farthest in distance and back the longest in time. It is at the limit of my comprehension to look at the shapes of color and consider that I am seeing an uncountable number of galaxies located an unfathomable distance from the earth. How many of the stars in those galaxies have planets and do any of them host what we would call intelligent life? Are we unique or are we just a few of a vast population spread throughout the cosmos?
I do not think we can resist, in the long run, seeking answers to those questions. And that is why I believe we will eventually return to the Moon, and go on to Mars. And then contemplate the seemingly insurmountable challenge of reaching the other planets and beyond. I don't know when and I don't know how. But I think we will. It's in our genes.
