U.S. Exploration of Mars and Search for National Purpose

Kevin Sweeney’s column (“A Voyage That Might Anger, Not Inspire,” Commentary, May 25) about human exploration of Mars raises some good questions, but also misses the point. President Bush’s visionary call for the human exploration of Mars as the goal of the American space program is welcomed by those of us who have for years advocated such a goal. But it is also deficient in that President Bush has not provided the political rationale or explained the purpose of such a mission. Sweeney’s objections are based on his perception that this is merely a repeat of President Kennedy’s call in 1961 to put Americans on the Moon in response to Sputnik and the flight of Yuri Gagarin.

The situation is very different now and there is little sentiment for Americans going back to the Moon or on to Mars in a race with the Russians. But repeated public opinion polls and newspaper editorials prove there is a great deal of support for Americans and Soviets combining their resources in a global effort to explore Mars and so reap the benefits of space science.

Lamentably President Bush did not allude to international cooperation in his Texas speech, instead calling for “an American flag on Mars” (Part A, May 12). But just one month earlier, he directed that talks begin immediately with all space-faring nations, including the Soviet Union, to seek ways of getting together on the human exploration of the solar system.

Put in that context, the human exploration of Mars makes enormous sense. It has a political rationale and can produce benefits into science and technology, education, and economy for the country. Doing it in the traditional NASA way--finding the most expensive structure possible--probably isn’t correct. But other options are being investigated and it is too early to criticize a plan not yet offered. An international space technology program, pooling the resources of the aerospace industries of the two superpowers, and redirecting their previous emphasis on weapons of mass destruction, is an opportunity that we should welcome. Sweeney should learn more about this opportunity instead of using just one speech as his basis for criticism.

LOUIS FRIEDMAN

Executive Director, Planetary Society

Pasadena