The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1966. The Bid For The Moon

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30979, 8 February 1966, Page 16

The Press TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 1966. The Bid For The Moon

The first decade of space exploration has not yet ended, yet the achievement, to say the least, has been spectacular. In no other field of scientific research has progress been made with such startling speed, and the Russians have had a major share of the successes. It is just eight years since they won worldwide acclaim by putting Sputnik 1 into orbit with a scientific payload of only 184 pounds—a mere trifle compared with their achievement last year in putting a 26,000-pound space station into orbit. Two months ago the Americans appeared to have nudged ahead in the “ space race ” with their rendezvous of two space craft, Gemini 6 and 7. The Russians habitually say little about their successes and nothing at all about their failures, whereas the American practice is to conceal nothing, balancing failure against success in full-scale publicity. The Americans have been characteristically generous in their praise of the latest Soviet achievement, the “ soft ” moon landing made last week by Luna IX, marking success after four failures. Remarkable as the performance of the Americans has been in photographic and instrumental exploration of the moon, complementing Russian efforts in that field—in the Venus probe of 1962, and in the wonderful fly-past of Mars last year—they will be the first to admit that the Russians are maintaining their lead, slender as it may be, in the race to land a manned spacecraft on the moon. The first United States softlanding attempt is scheduled for May next, using a Surveyor spacecraft. The Surveyor programme is said to be going well, and a successful landing will be important to United States prestige and as a means of amplifying the new knowledge of the moon's surface acquired by the Russians. The question whether this competitive bid for a moon-landing “ first ” is worth the vast expenditure involved is certain to be raised again. Will there be Russians or Americans on the moon by 1970? Speculation. even now. is pointless, since there is scarcely yet a clear understanding of what is involved in adjusting human life to lunar conditions. There are, however, many in influential places in the United States who deplore what they regard as the staggering cost of maintaining rivalry in a field offering endless scope for profitable co-operation. President Johnson has several times invited co-operation from Russia instead of rivalry for prestige in space, as President Kennedy did before him. The Russians, regrettably, have not been responsive, although the cost of their researches must be imposing an enormous strain on their resources. It has often been emphasised that in Russia, as in the United States and, indeed, everywhere else, there are appalling human needs, to the meeting of which some of the billions spent on space exploration could be diverted. Co-operation would mean a pooling of resources, in material as well as in knowledge, and end the prodigious waste of money that duplication of effort causes. Sooner or later, it is to be supposed, the sheer irrationality of the current rivalry will be recognised; but the next move will have to come from Moscow. In the absence of any such move, the United States will press on with its space programme in competition with Russia. Four years ago when, as VicePresident. he was chairman of the National Space Council, Mr Johnson said this: “ I do not see our sur- *' vival as a free and first-rate nation unless we have •• a position of leadership in space. If the nation so “ endowed used its space strength to support freedom “ the world would gain. If such a nation were given to *' blackmail, coercion and domination of others, free- “ dom would be the loser. Hence, the United States *• dare not risk being in second place in the space “ race. ”