The Press FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1963. Dragging Feet In The Space Race

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30121, 3 May 1963, Page 10

The Press FRIDAY, MAY 3, 1963. Dragging Feet In The Space Race

If de Tocqueville, with remarkable prescience, was referring to the space race when he said 130 years ago that the Russians and the Anglo-Americans seemed to be aiming at the same goal, he may be proved wrong by history. There are growing doubts in the United States whether President Kennedy’s determination to place an American on the moon by 1970 is really worth the expense—something like 30,000 million dollars, sufficient, and more, it has been estimated, to build and endow universities with complete medical, engineering, and agricultural faculties in all the countries that have been added to the United Nations since its inception. The principal scientific criticism is that the objectives of the moon programme could be achieved at a fraction of the cost by putting instruments, rather than a man, on the moon and spending the money saved on enhancing American education. This course, says Dr. J. R. Killian, former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, would do more for the future of the United States and its position in the world than several additional billion dollars for a man on the moon.

Similarly, influential Congressmen do not question the importance of space exploration, but rather the priorities: whether it is more important to put a man on the moon than to spend the huge sums required on projects that would ease the unemployment, education, housing, slums, and transport problems facing the United States. Senator Fulbright, a prominent Democrat, has strongly opposed paying the price of what he describes as the Olympic lunar race. The nation’s prestige, he says, will never be greater than its ability to house, transport, educate, and employ its own people. The critics do not overlook the propaganda value of winning the race to which President Kennedy has committed the United States; but there are growing indications that Wash-

ington has learned to take space reverses much more serenely than when the first sputnik startled the world. The latest Soviet moon vehicle, five times heavier than its predecessor, was a symbol of Soviet space progress, even though it apparently failed to carry out its major mission. Yet, in spite of American technological set-backs with the Pioneer and Ranger moon missions, there has been no Congressional demand for a hastening of the American moon programme, but rather a desire for an investigation of the organisation, management, and goals of the whole space programme.

Down -to - earth political considerations are also bound to influence Congress. There are suspicions that the space programme may have become, as the “ Eco- “ nomist ” puts it, “ a dan- “ gerous honey-jar full of “ political favours and pri“vate profit at the expense “of the overburdened tax- “ payers ”, Few military men now believe the moon has any conceivable military use and they would prefer greater concentration on ballistic missiles. In addition, Congressmen have been asked to cut taxes this year; and they feel under some pressure to cut expenditure. The huge space budget is a tempting target. Even to consider such a course is a significant swing from Congressional anxiety over the last four years to ensure that the space programme was getting sufficient funds. When he nominated the United States for the moon race two years ago, President Kennedy warned Americans that they must be prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to win. Congress is now facing the full effects of the President’s decision and the debate is expected to be protracted. Whatever its outcome, it will underline more heavily than ever before the futility and waste of duplicating such a vast programme in two countries. Reaching the moon should not be a task for either the United States or Russia, but for all countries working together and sharing the burdens.