This is a nice-sounding idea, but it is not fully fleshed out. There are scant details about how Kennedy proposes to actually achieve this, nor is there any evidence of widespread public demand for it. The time frame he outlines — 10 years! — sounds wildly over-optimistic, and arbitrary in any case. Even he admits that it will be expensive, but he doesn’t say exactly how expensive or how we will pay for it.
Nobody is arguing that landing a man on the moon would not be a stirring national achievement. But since when is inspiration a justification for national policy? Far more sensible would be to attempt to get a man a quarter of the way to the moon in 20 years, with a longer-term project to get a full three-quarters of the way there by the year 2000. In point of fact, the technology to get anyone to the moon and back simply does not exist, and there is no proof it will ever exist. Rocket science is incredibly complex, which is why everything else is now described as “it’s not rocket science.”
And what good would it do to get to the moon if America has to shoulder a disproportionate share of the cost? Arguments about leadership are just talk. Arguments about spinoff benefits such as communications satellites and whatnot are mere speculation.
“In a very real sense, it will not be one man going to the moon — if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there.” This sounds all well and good in theory, but as a concrete plan of action it is nothing more than grandiose talk, and frankly irresponsible in comparison with the more modest space goals on the table.
So there you have it. The only real difference between the moon landing and combating climate change is that the moon landing was optional. Stopping the runaway climate catastrophe is survival.
More cartoons and blog posts from Tom Toles: