EDITORIAL

Moonshot brings mixed feelings Some may wonder about the need for Apollo 11, but none

can doubt the greatness of the technical feat

This week Apollo 11 stands on its shaft of flame and heads moonward (see page 14).

As we contemplate the event, we have all manner of mixed feelings, as doubtless do others.

Wonder, technically grounded though we are, that we have come so far so fast. Pride, in the technology that has made it possible and in the extensive role of chemistry. Envy, that we are not able to go along. Curiosity, about what use we will make of the moon now that we are about to set foot on it, and curiosity, too, about future space goals we may set. Concern as to possible misuse of this space outpost. Sadness, if we may 'be permitted to succumb to sentiment, that one of the seemingly inviolate bodies will have been touched by man. Will it ever look quite the same again? And resigned sadness, too, that the age of individual achievement (in the sense of the Lindberghs, Chichesters, and Manrys ) has largely given way to the anonymity of teams and massive efforts.

Finally, we feel a certain touch of amusement when we recall the attitude represented by all those, lowly and great, who over the years have made their negative forecasts about this and that.

Consider, for example, this singularly appro­priate reference from the December 1968 issue of The Futurist: "In the early 1800's English chemist William H. Wollaston hooted at the proposal to light cities by gas, saying: ["They might as well try to light London with a slice from the moon."]

C&EN editorials are signed and represent only the views of the signer. Unless stated to the contrary they do not represent the official position of the American Chemical Society. Rather they are aimed at focusing attention on some controversial point, at sparking intelligent discussion, at raising legitimate questions.

Yet great as the feat is, we think it's in order to put the Apollo achievement in a certain amount of perspective. Will the moon trip have any more relative impact on our time than Columbus' voyage had on his, or Watt's steam engine on his, or Gutenberg's movable type invention on his? We don't know, but we think it's a reasonable question. (For more on the question of historical perspective and relative meaning of man's progress, see Paul Herrmann's "Conquest by Man." )

In fact, is this $24 billion trip even necessary, some ask, considering our unsolved earth prob­lems. We happen to think it is not only neces­sary but probably inevitable, given the human drive for knowledge ( and conquest? ). From a philosophical standpoint, why not just as well ask the research chemist why he chases an obscure molecule? Why try to unravel the mystery of the double helix? Why indeed?

One answer, of course, is: "Because it is there" (as George Leigh Mallory said of his mountain). That may be about as good a reply as any.

In any event, this week the discussion becomes academic. And nothing will be quite the same again.

"-ek*jn? M<Lc ̂

JULY 14, 1969 C&EN 5