MONUMENT TO APOLLO: I'll be the first to agree that we ought not repeat Apollo in form or rationale...but even the most bitter "flags and footprints" critics out there have to acknowledge that it was an incredible feat.

In his latest essay, "An Apollo National Monument", John Carter McKnight argues that the positives of Apollo -- the technological achievement, the triumph of reason, the icon of a progress-oriented outlook -- outweigh the shortsightedness of the program's goals and organization, and that these positives ought to be memorialized in a dramatic and unforgettable fashion:

I have long argued against attempts to resurrect that sense of purpose, and against grandiose schemes built on the premise of it magically reappearing, and regard Apollo as a significant misstep in the path towards a spacefaring civilization. Yet the fact remains that Apollo was a uniquely positive accomplishment born of American national will. We have a Statue of Liberty; we could use an Icon of Hope and Reason.

Perhaps you can guess from that snippet what it is he is proposing. Granted, there are a few technical snags with the proposal as he has described it, but nothing that can't be overcome.

As to whether it would be worthwhile, that is another matter. I don't need a monument to Apollo, as I get the point of it all quite readily whenever I see any of the hardware, read a book about it, see video from the launches or moon walks, etc. I suspect this is true of others in the space advocacy community. But McKnight has a good point regarding the "moonrace revisionists", who claim with increasing volume -- and, unfortunately, increasing audience -- that the landings never occurred, that we could never have gotten to the moon in the 1960's with the technology available. I doubt that a monument would change the minds of those who accept this class of conspiracy theory -- but for those who might be tempted to listen to such crackpots, it could serve as a quiet touchstone of reality.

Posted by T.L. James on June 30, 2002 04:11 AM