A Voyage That Might Anger, Not Inspire : Mars mission: It reeks of old men fighting old battles--a tired way to help us find that ephemeral ‘national purpose.’

George Bush, making one of his boldest statements as President, recently said that the United States will place an astronaut on Mars by the year 2019. It’s a challenge reminiscent of the one issued in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, when he said America would send a man to the moon and back by the end of the decade.

I’ll never forget the feeling I had when, at 10 years of age, I watched man first walk on the moon. I was astounded, silenced in awe. The event blasted away at the limits of my imagination and my notions of what humans could accomplish.

President Bush’s proposed mission, however, hasn’t the power to unleash such emotions. The lowest cost estimate is a half-trillion dollars (sure, like all government cost estimates, to rise). Unless we spend that money differently, such a trip might anger rather than inspire; it might underscore our failures here on Earth rather than our successes in space.

The mission reeks of old men fighting old battles. While it sounds like an imaginative and bold move, it really is a tired and seemingly safe way to help us find that ephemeral sense of “national purpose.” Clearly, Apollo was one of our bright moments; one senses a yearning to reach back and try it again.

In words reminiscent of Manifest Destiny, the President said, “Before Apollo celebrates the 50th anniversary of landing on the moon, the American flag should be planted on Mars.” Do Americans really care if our flag is planted so far away?

This self-centered approach grates on other nations, particularly when the announcement came the very week that the Administration refused to participate in a United Nations effort to help Third World countries find replacements for chlorofluorocarbons.

One scientist, talking of the mineral-rich asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, said, “those materials are available to the first nation that gets there.” That’s a different ostensible rationale than for Apollo; where we once traveled in peace, we would now travel in commerce.

If the President seeks to challenge Americans and create a sense of national purpose, then his intentions are sound. The sensible approach, however, would be to issue a more terrestrial, though equally grand, challenge.

For example, we could spend a half-trillion dollars (admittedly, like the other cost estimate, this would would surely rise) to clean up the oceans and the air. Such a mission would provide the desired intellectual focus and likely more practical economic spinoff benefits. We would become the world leader in the most important industries of the next century. And such a mission would provide tangible, direct results with a positive impact on all Americans--not to mention the planet. Our foreign policy would be aided and our global image greatly improved if we unilaterally accepted one of the world’s great challenges as our own.

Such a challenge would do much, much more to create a sense of national purpose. Americans cannot be mobilized over an extended period of time simply to make a statement; they want accomplishments. There was interest in the Apollo program because people wanted peaceful exploration of space to head off a perceived Soviet threat. Additionally, the Kennedy challenge didn’t create a mood in this country. Rather, focused energy released by the Sputnik launching, Cold War rhetoric and 1950s complacency.

There is a tangible energy today as well, but it centers around environmental issues. The President can provide a focus and drive to that energy. Such a challenge would create a far greater sense of national community. Unlike traditional space agency programs, which most of us watch in wonder, all Americans could participate at their own level in a grand environmental mission. A national purpose is created not by observance but by participation.

It would be unfair to deprive tomorrow’s children of the inspiration that many gained from Neil Armstrong’s steps. But let’s face it: Mars is not the moon. For the 10-year-old children of 2019, our first responsibility is to ensure that they can continue to look to the moon with a sense of wonder, not with a yearning to know if there are better, safer places to live.