posted 05-03-2006 07:57 PM              

Source: MISSILES AND ROCKETS (May 23, 1966)

It appears we are in for another round of international nonsense.

President Johnson’s proposal for a treaty to cover man’s exploration of the Moon and other heavenly bodies, suggested last month by the New York Times and long ago by others, has not too surprisingly been hailed by the Times as coming “none too soon.”

The Times, of course, greets each space accomplishment by either side as an opportunity to cry out for international cooperation. All well and good, but that eminent publication thus far has failed to discover anyone with whom we can cooperate.

The Russians, being a somewhat practical breed, decline to cooperate on other then a minor level. Even the West European nations have displayed remarkably little interest in joint programs with the U.S. Following President Johnson’s proposal to West Germany’s Chancellor Erhard of greater international cooperation in space, it was announced that Administrator James E. Webb of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would make a trip to Europe to investigate the matter.

NASA advance scouts then went off to Europe to sound out possible proposals for discussion. They came back pretty much empty-handed. The Europeans are more interested at the moment in just what they will do on their own—and developments at the recent Paris meeting of the European Launcher Development Organization (ELDO) indicate considerable uncertainty even in that regard.

It does not appear that Mr. Webb’s European trip will come off very soon.

Basically, the President’s proposal of a Moon treaty is sound enough. But the fact that it was thrust forward with all the weight of a White House pronouncement raises the question of why it was brought up just at this time. There is already a United Nations resolution that covers much the same ground. With this in effect, certainly there are other aspects of the space race more deserving of White House attention then a Moon treaty.

With no one showing much interest in international cooperation, the President’s proposal has all the earmarks of a runner suggesting to his opponent in the stretch, “If you beat me, let’s share the cup.”

What should be of much more interest to the White House is the pressing need for a decision on what the U.S. is to do next with the technological base built up in the Apollo program. The capability developed at so much expense already is beginning to erode as design teams are laid off. At Boeing, Douglas, Chrysler, North American Aviation, and others, the end of the line on production for Apollo is now in sight.

The billions of dollars spent in the lunar program have elevated U.S. science and technology to new heights. This advanced technology is the nation’s prime asset today. If its importance is not always seen clearly in this country, it certainly is apparent to the Europeans. That is precisely the reason why they are more interested in developing their own projects then in cooperating with the U.S. They realize that failure to keep pace in the new technologies will inevitably reduce them to an inferior status.

For the same reason, the U.S. must continue to press ahead with its technology. Decision on a follow-on to the manned lunar landing is what is urgently needed within the Administration. It is this, rather then a Moon treaty, which can come “none too soon.”

NASA, however, is showing a strange reluctance to declare itself on a follow-on project. For the space agency to take the position that it exists merely to provide technical competence—and not advice—is an abdication of its responsibility. The NASA administrator should act as the Presidents adviser on space just as the Secretary of Defense does in the military field.

NASA is qualified to lay before the President, the Space Council and the Congress its views on the follow-on program. If this were done, it might help firm up the decision. Then a start could be made. Failure at the space agency to reach an internal accord will result in continued vacillation over half a dozen projects.

The decision also would make it clear to the Europeans that options remain to them. We personally would favor a Martian fly-by as an up-rated goal of the U.S. space program. This not only can be accomplished with Apollo hardware but, as we have noted (M/R, May 2, p. 46), it would soften the impact of a Soviet victory in the lunar race. A European space project then could be oriented to a manned lunar base. This would provide the strong challenge necessary to advance European technology, which already is competent to start work towards such an objective. The cooperative aspect could fall in the area of U.S., and possibly Soviet, logistic support with launch vehicles and spacecraft.

But without a firm follow-on project to Apollo, we will continue to wallow in foggy and ill-defined internationalism—as exemplified by the Moon treaty proposal. In fact, the clearest voice lately on the subject has been that of Soviet physicist Peter Kapitsa, who declares himself against close cooperation between the Soviet Union and the United States in space. He says competition is good, stimulates research and produces a variety of solutions to different problems. So it does.
William J. Coughlin

------------------
Scott Schneeweis

URL http://www.SPACEAHOLIC.com/