Congrats, Guys... Now You Need To Convince America WHY

By ANN Associate Editor Rob Finfrock

There was a full moon this weekend. That only seems appropriate, given that it appears NASA will announce Monday they're starting to get serious about going back there.

If the timeframe proposed by NASA holds -- manned Earth orbital flights would begin by 2012, with a lunar mission anticipated six years after that -- then the first moon landing of the 21st century would occur only 46 years after we last visited our celestial neighbor, leaving behind six lunar landers, three rovers and a multitude of golf balls.

I'm excited. Really, I am. The destination isn't what excites me most, although I was born three years after Apollo 17 returned to Earth. It's all about the journey, in my mind, and I'm looking forward to seeing how we move down the path.

But what about the rest of the country? In a world of Katrina, Osama and Iraq, how enthusiastically will the American public support the idea of using money that pollsters say could be better spent reinforcing Gulf Coast relief efforts, or aiding our troops overseas, on a trip to the moon? A trip to a place we've already been, a long time ago, and haven't seen fit to visit ever since?

NASA will not only have to figure out the science of such an endeavor -- as they have proven time and again to be more than capable of doing -- but both the agency and the government may also have to launch a massive public relations effort to convince us why we should go back there in the first place.

John F. Kennedy was a master of such things. Few speeches have ever come close to the veritas of his original 1961 edict to "go into space because whatever mankind must undertake, free men must fully share... I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth."

Kennedy had a clear goal in mind, and knew how to sell it -- even as he knew scientists had no idea at the time how to accomplish it. Remember that when JFK made his pitch in 1961, NASA had a grand total of one sub-orbital manned Mercury flight under its belt. That was all. As Kennedy looked to the future, the reality was that NASA had blown up more rockets than it had been able to launch successfully.

Yet the NASA of the 1960s rose to the challenge admirably, accomplishing the improbable with style, with flair... and with the broad support of the American people. Not even the tragic losses of three astronauts in the 1967 Apollo 1 ground test could stem that tide.

It was all about beating the Soviets, after all, and the Apollo landings proved that America could come from behind and trump the Soviet Union at what had been its own game since October 1957, when Sputnik 1 was launched. Such competitive spirit seems almost quaint now.

Today, we clearly have the ability -- for not only does NASA intend to build on past lessons, they intend to utilize past hardware, too. This isn't a bad thing, especially considering that Russia has flown nothing but Soyuz capsules from the time of Apollo through today. When the shuttle was grounded, Soyuz still flew.

Early efforts to sell such a program have been less than encouraging, though. In his January 2004 speech proposing trips back to the moon, eventually leading to Mars, President Bush said "we do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this -- human beings are headed into the cosmos." Inspiring words, perhaps, but where is our goal? More importantly, what is the point?

NASA hasn't done much better so far, nor have they inspired others to stand proudly on the soapbox of space travel and shout to the masses. In response to NASA's presentation of its plan to the White House last week, George Washington University Space Policy Institute Director John Logsdon told the AP that this time around "the emphasis is on achieving goals rather than elegance."

Lacks a certain panache, doesn't it? NASA will have to come up with something better than that when it pitches its plan to the American public Monday -- something to rouse interest, and inspire a spirit of adventure to carry us through the next, sheesh, thirteen years. (It only took us eight the first time, and we knew nothing then.)

Truth is, Logsdon's statement is reflective of a more pragmatic philosophy towards space flight in this time, just as JFK's stirring call roused the exploratory spirits of Americans at the dawn of the Cold War. We aren't trying to "beat" anybody this time in our race to space... except maybe China. Doomsayers say we must keep our eyes on this awakening technological giant, as well they should.

When the Chinese launch their first vehicle capable of reaching the moon -- and they most certainly will -- I'm sure some patriotic spirit will be kindled in the masses. It may even happen before 2018. Until that moment, though, the main concern would seem to be how a new space race would affect our ability to buy inexpensive clothes and electronics at Wal-Mart.

In the 1960s, not even the gruesome images being televised from Vietnam waned support from the space program. You'd think the same could possibly occur now; the situations are eerily similar, after all. The war in Iraq has polarized the country, just as Vietnam did. And the devastation of Katrina has filled our screens and called race relations into question yet again, much as the riots of the mid 1960s did.

Back then, America had plenty to be fearful of... yet if anything, those atrocities inspired more people to look to the skies, for relief and hope. I don't see that same wary-but-hopefully spirit in today's America; not now, anyway.

I cringe at the thought of a talking head on CNN or FOX News somewhat snidely asking the admittedly prescient question, "How will going to the moon help America defeat Osama bin Laden?" You know it's going to happen, if it hasn't already.

I only hope the person who is asked the question can come up with a decent answer. Something along the lines of "because it's what separates an ideology of hope, of dreams, and of freedom, from a doctrine that maintains its followers must kill those who try to aim beyond their understanding of the world, and even of faith."

My tip to NASA, for what it's worth: start selling it right now. Don't wait until we're closer to the first mission. You can even use that quote; I don't mind. Our foe this time around is closed-mindedness. That may be harder to defeat than the Soviets, but remember that we've done it many times before in our country's history.

How did we do it? By building on lessons from the past... and that's why we need to go to the moon. Again.

FMI: www.nasa.gov