Submitted by Arthur with permission of the E-T

When NASA says its "best and brightest" are working to find out what caused the Columbia tragedy, I am not encouraged.

Why? Because the best and brightest don't work for NASA anymore.

NASA needs a mission that inspires

By Ken Johnson

When NASA says its "best and brightest" are working to find out what caused the Columbia tragedy, I am not encouraged.

Why? Because the best and brightest don't work for NASA anymore.

People of a scientific or engineering bent who want to be the best put emselves where the action is. They want to change the world, to make a difference, to do what everyone says is impossible.

The impossible no longer happens at NASA. The space agency lacks the money, and sadly, the vision, to strive for what people say can't be done.

Once, NASA did the impossible and the best and brightest were lining up to be part of history. The moon program that ran through the Gemini and Apollo missions of the 1960s and 1970 ranks among the spectacular achievements of the human race. We left the place that gave us birth and walked on another world.

While we are doing amazing things with our unmanned deep-space probes, our manned space program is a mess. Space shuttles fly essentially the same orbits that John Glenn flew on our first manned orbital flight. We are spending tens of billions on a space station to repeat experiments done 10 years ago by the Russians on Mir.

How uninspiring is our current manned space program? Consider the following thought experiment:

Imagine the earth reduced to the size of a 12-inch diameter globe.

That's something we can hold in our hands. We can relate to its proportions.

On this scale, the moon is about the size of a softball. It orbits the globe at a distance of about 10 yards.

Where, on this scale, are our multibillion-dollar space shuttles and space station? The real shuttles orbit at an average of 200 miles above the earth. In our model, that means they skim along the globe about one-third of a inch above its surface.

The space station is a little farther out | 300 miles. In the model, it's about a half-inch above the globe.

This is not the stuff of which dreams are made.

I have always been a strong supporter of manned space flight. But to continue what we are doing now is a waste of resources | and lives.

Our manned space program lacks a vision, a goal that will rally the public to its support and bring back the best and brightest.

We ought to commit to returning to the moon and establishing a permanent base there. We could realistically achieve this in 10 years. Why do it?

Because the moon can be a rich source of minerals and raw materials for the next step | on to Mars. We could land a human on Mars within 25 years.

Either of these programs would be expensive. But they are important enough and dramatic enough to win the support of the American people.

They are ambitions worthy of a great nation.

Columbus set sail from Spain and discovered the New World. After his return, did Spaniards spend their time sailing in the safe waters of their own coast? No. They returned, again and again, and others followed.

That's what we need to do. To go back to the moon and beyond.

Anything that does not move us in that direction is not worth doing.

Mars awaits. It isn't that far. In our small-scale model, the Red Planet is about the size of a cantaloupe a mile away.

Mars is a whole world waiting to be explored. It could be humanity's second home.

Let's go.

Ken Johnson is editorial page editor of The Eagle-Tribune, Lawrence, Mass.