By H. K. Billy Burke, ContributorEVER SINCE reading H.G. Wells's science fiction novel The First Men in the Moon in my early teens, and seeing the film version of another of his books Things to Come a few years later in the 1930's, I have been a space enthusiast . Wells, who was regarded as something of a seer, set a date in the l980s for a space gun to fire a manned capsule to the moon [rocketry was in its infancy]. The motivations were adventure and science.
In l957 the Russians surprised the world by putting the first Sputnik satellite into orbit around the earth. This alarmed the Americans, who were alive to the military dangers as well as to their loss of prestige as they were then engaged in the cold war with Russia. President John F. Kennedy took up the challenge by announcing a US goal of putting a man on the moon and returning him to earth by the end of the decade of the l960's.
PRESTIGE, MILITARY ADVANTAGE
It should be noted that the motivations were prestige and military advantage rather than science and adventure. It also brought forward the projected date by some 15 years, for which I was elated. I arranged to be with friends in Birmingham, England to see the landing live on TV, which was one of the high points of my life.
As an amateur astronomer and former vice president of the Astronomical Association of Jamaica I have some idea of the size of the cosmos and the speed which would be necessary for humans to travel to planets beyond Mars in a travelling mode. The figures are awesome, so for now, anything more ambitious than Mars would have to be ruled out for this generation, except for unmanned robotic spacecraft.
It is also the general opinion among space scientists that there would be no great advantage in sending astronauts to Mars because they could do little more than robots could and it would complicate the mission enormously while adding tremendously to the cost. In other words they would prefer to spend their budget on dozens of unmanned missions rather than a few manned ones. Overall, the results would be better, more economical and just as satisfactory from the scientific point of view.
The space programme has been somewhat in the doldrums since the discontinuance of the lunar programme of the l960s and 70s. The public has lost a lot of its interest and the budget has been inadequate for anything on that scale. George Bush Snr. wanted to revive it and make it vibrant during his term in office but abandoned the idea when he saw an estimate of the cost.
Why the sudden interest by George W. Bush? Obviously because this is an election year in the US. After the Iraq disaster and the estrangement of so many friends and allies, Bush thinks he needs to rally the US people behind him as a promoter of a grand enterprise to arouse their interest and support and win him votes. He also wants to set his mark on the pages of history as Kennedy did when he went in for the space programme. Of course, this is not how he put it in the inspiring speech someone wrote for him.
NEW MOTIVES
Here then, we have two new motives for pursuing a new space agenda, or could it be that I am becoming more cynical and more familiar with living realities? The motivation also seems to become less laudable. Bush knows that by the time the costs start soaring he will no longer be in office and others will have to finance them. He figures that it must be a manned programme in spite of what the scientists want or it will not capture the interest of the public and win him votes. No one at NASA would say a word about this as they sorely want the funds to spend whatever the strings attached.
I for one should be very excited about this announcement but I am not. In the first place I do not believe that it will materialise. Judging from his record I regret to have to say that I do not trust the President and his motives. What he has announced is a long-term goal and I believe that it will either be shelved after the election or modified out of recognition when the costs are determined. He has started small with an increase of only one billion dollars in the first five years. It may even prove provocative to US citizens when they understand what they would have to sacrifice financially in the end to achieve it. In that case it could backfire on President Bush.
This is an outcome devoutly to be wished and should be encouraged by the Democrats who, I am sure, have more mundane matters on their minds such as the soaring national debt after the Iraqi war.
