The Planetary Society said today that NASA should focus on sending humans to asteroids and Mars instead of first aiming for the Moon. But some say returning to the Moon is an essential stepping-stone to more distant destinations.
NASA should learn how to walk before it runs, by going to the Moon before sending humans to Mars, says Apollo 8 commander Frank Borman: "I think the difficulty there has been underestimated."
Borman spoke at a rare event: a public reunion of the Apollo 8 mission's three astronauts, held on Thursday at the Newseum in Washington, DC.
Apollo 8, a seven-day mission that orbited the Moon 10 times, launched almost 40 years ago, on 21 December 1968. It was the first crewed mission to leave Earth's orbit, and its crew members - Borman, William Anders and James Lovell (right to left in image) - were the first humans to see the far side of the Moon, as well as Earth-rise over an alien horizon.
All three astronauts weighed in on NASA's space plans at Thursday's reunion. The agency is currently following President Bush's plan to return astronauts to the Moon by 2020, with an ultimate aim of sending humans to Mars.
Lovell, who later flew on the troubled Apollo 13 mission, said that reaching the Moon or Mars is less important than the technology developed as a result of the effort. "We get a lot for our dollar in supporting space activities," Lovell said. Returning to the Moon "is necessary because we still have to develop the newer technology."
But Lovell's crewmate William Anders noted that technology was not a driving force during the Cold War. "We didn't go to the Moon for Teflon pans or lunar rocks. We went to the Moon to beat the 'dirty commies'," he said.
The astronauts said public interest declined soon after the race to the Moon ended, when Apollo 11 astronauts planted a US flag on the lunar surface in July 1969, less than 7 months after the Apollo 8 mission.
"NASA had public support during the Cold War," Anders said. "There just isn't that kind of support for what is really running up the bill nowadays."
A mission to Mars is sufficiently difficult that it should be an international effort and not driven by competition between individual countries like the US and China, Anders added.
Apollo 8's success may also bode well for NASA's future space plans. Apollo 8 was the first manned mission to be launched aboard NASA's Saturn V rocket, which suffered from vibration problems that caused it to bounce up and down.
Not long before the Apollo 8 launch, engineers were still struggling to fix this 'pogo' problem, Borman recalled, but they managed to work out a solution before lift-off. NASA's Ares 1 rocket, which will be part of the shuttle's replacement, suffers from similar vibration problems, but the agency says it can fix them.
Rachel Courtland (Image: NASA-MSFC)
"Lovell's crewmate William Anders noted that technology was not a driving force during the Cold War. "We didn't go to the Moon for Teflon pans or lunar rocks. We went to the Moon to beat the 'dirty commies'," he said."
That's what HE thinks. Good for him. As if that round-about way of demonstrating national superiority really showed 'em, yessiree, by golly, we beat 'em.
Nope. In THIS country everyone is entitled to voice an opinion, no matter how ill-informed it may be. It's truly amazing he hasn't grasped it after 4+ decades, but that's NOT the reason why the US decided to undertake such a difficult and expensive task. For the sake of mere appearances? To be blunt, as a mere propaganda stunt? Just to "beat those dirty commies"?
He must be kidding, right?
SURELY, that idiotic rationale for the space program as manifested by the Apollo missions during that thrilling decade has, by now, at long and tedious last, run its inane and insipid course. There's been more than enough lip service paid to that nonsense by political ideologues and "political scientists" who couldn't frame any issue outside of their "specialty" in their proper context and merits if their lives depended on it.
Frank Borman and Jim Lovell are class acts. They conduct themselves in a manner worthy and respectful of their station as true heroes in the eyes of the public and serve as a boundless source of inspiration to young people. Those courageous and talented men are worthy of everyone's lasting esteem. Lovell himself over the years has calmly and responsibly espoused the real motivation that took us successfully to the moon, that which a real and earnest curiosity on the part of tens of thousands of individuals who worked so hard and personally contributed of themselves towards that goal made possible. It makes perfect sense too: we went to the moon BECAUSE WE WANTED TO GO THERE AND SEE WHAT ANOTHER WORLD WAS LIKE. Simple. Scientific curiosity 101, right up there in fundamental importance to each and every one of us as our learning how to take our first steps as toddlers.
It really is that simple. THAT'S what drove us to reaching for it. Not some lousy ideological or nationalisitic game of one-upsmanship so beloved of politicians who then used that excuse to kill the program, squandering the enthusiasm, energy and momentum of several generations, and losing what future we could have built by now.
But couldn't New Scientist be courageous enough to report on what ELSE Anders said that actually elicited nervous groans from the audience...an audience that included kids?
No, it wasn't very pretty. I guess that stuff is just too hot to touch and REPORT. But however "patriotic" he pretends to be in his professed naval carreer, while leveling such grievously unflattering potshot comments about his own President-Elect, the message that particular role-model sends is an exceedingly troubling one.
The word "shame" seems inadequate. If that is patriotic behavior, I spit on it.