Posted on 02/02/2003 3:42:54 PM PST by Pokey78
The loss of the US space shuttle Columbia has renewed debate about the future of space exploration, with many suggesting that manned space missions pose an “unacceptable risk”. To which a considered response might be: go paint it on the wall of your cave.
All attempts at discovery involve risk. It is in the nature of experiments and breaking new ground that nobody knows exactly what will happen. There is no such thing as a free ride to the future, and the path of progress has often proved steep and bloody. The alternative, however, is to hang around at the bottom.
The great naval explorers took their lives in their hands to sail the unknown world, at a time when doom-mongers declared that they would fall off the edge of the flat Earth. Marie Curie, whose experiments with radioactivity led to treatment for cancer but also killed her, is only the most famous self-sacrificing scientist.
According to one American authority, with two catastrophic failures in 113 missions the space shuttle mission has a success rate of 98 per cent. Yet the risk of rocket travel cannot be eliminated. As the professor puts it: “You’re riding a stick of dynamite into space. We know how to do that, but sticks of dynamite can explode.” The seven astronauts who died when Columbia exploded were aware of the risks. They considered those risks worth taking to further causes in which they believed.
Yet society seems increasingly uncomfortable with risk and uncertainty. Ours is a cautious, risk-averse, blame-and-claim culture. Never mind Marie Curie; many now consider it unacceptable to sacrifice so much as a monkey or a mouse for medical science.
In 1969 the Moon landing was celebrated as a high point of human achievement. Now the astronauts are accused of polluting or raping the Moon — or worse, faking the whole thing. In a debate on the problems of space exploration at the Royal Society in London last October, one British expert noted that, when Columbus left Portugal in search of the New World, his patrons at least knew that if he didn’t come back “nobody was going to sue anybody”.
When the space shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986, President Ronald Reagan declared that the space programme would not falter. “It is all part of taking a chance and expanding man's horizons,” Reagan said. “The future doesn’t belong to the faint-hearted. It belongs to the brave.” Despite these bold words, no space shuttle flew for almost three years, and newer, bigger missions stalled. After the loss of the Columbia, President George W. Bush, too, spoke about how space exploration must go on, led by “the inspiration of discovery and the longing to understand”. It remains to be seen what those words mean in practice. Bush’s attempt to depict the Old Testament prophet Isaiah as a pioneer of space exploration does not fill some of us with confidence.
Wider reactions to the Columbia disaster illustrate a powerful mood of pessimism and anti-exploration. Long before we knew what had caused the explosion, everybody began sky-writing instant interpretations of its “deeper meaning” in the space where Columbia should have been, projecting their own prejudices on to the wreckage.
Among the “I-told-you-so” tendency there are signs of some almost revelling in the tragedy. Soon after Columbia exploded, Canadian television was reportedly discussing whether the mission was another sign of American “arrogance” and “overconfidence” in the run-up to war with Iraq. One liberal British newspaper’s Washington correspondent linked the disaster to the attacks of September 11. “The empire is not invincible,” he wrote. “America builds the tallest buildings in the world but they got knocked down. America conquers the heavens, but the spacecraft fragments into fiery shards, incinerating a crew travelling at six times the speed of sound.” Presumably such people would be happier if Americans limited their horizons to building bungalows and flying a kite.
The sustained campaign to talk down aspirations and talk up risks has affected public perceptions, encouraging many to react defensively to the loss of Columbia. On Sunday The New York Times noted that “for Americans already grappling with a confluence of threatening events, the instinctive reaction was ‘What next?’” American television coverage of Columbia mixed up a confused cocktail of references — to September 11, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, Israel, the Holocaust — that seemed to reinforce the notion of an uncertain nation feeling itself under siege, topped off by reports of “toxic” debris raining from the skies “like a scene from The War of the Worlds”.
As our American friends might say, let’s get real. This is about a fatal accident during a space flight. There is no need to burden the tragedy with all our petty prejudices. From what little we know, the Columbia disaster looks less like a symptom of arrogance than of a lack of ambition, of trying to run a space exploration programme on the (relatively) cheap using outdated technology.
The priority now should be to work out how best to push further and faster into space. Even some pro-exploration scientists are suggesting limits on manned space flights, claiming that the science could be done with less risk by robots. But even if there really were no scientific reason for sending people into space, it would still be important that they boldly go to, say, Mars, to revive the flagging spirit of exploration.
Our attitude to space matters most as a reflection of how we see ourselves on Earth. If that makes a positive response to Columbia important in America, it is more urgent in Britain, where we apparently don’t have enough true grit to keep a motorway free of snow. We are in danger of creating a world where, while only a few of us are in the gutter, none of us is looking at the stars.
You mean because I worked my tail off in school, applied, and worked my tail off in NASA and the DOD, I am a beneficiary like some welfare recipient?
We must stop reaching for the stars.
It seems he was serious. I guess that's what it's like to be without hope.
Yes and no. Yes, you are the beneficiary of the forced transfer of wealth if you are paid by or your work and equipment is funded by any government agency. Someone did not decide that
"Jeez, I wonder what a radio emissions map of the crab nebula looks like. (or whatever it is you do) I want to know so badly that I'm willing to donate however many millions of dollars that I worked hard for to buy the equipment, train the researchers and pay for their livlihood to find out."What happened is that the government plundered a large number of taxpayers at gunpoint, and the some group of bureaucrats were sitting around wondering what to do with all of the ill gotten wealth decided to let some of their cronies decide to dole it out via grants.
No in that you actually work. It's just that the work is not something that the free market demands very much of. If it weren't for the government putting a gun to the heads of taxpayers and then distributing the largess there wouldn't be much radio astronomy. How hard you worked, how smart you are (and I don't think you would be able to do what you do without being fairly smart) is irrelevant. You are not doing work driven by the free market. You are doing government work. (And if you're not, then you are the rare exception. You are well aware that most astronomy is paid for by governments)
It seems he was serious. I guess that's what it's like to be without hope.
It's really sad how many people think that because sci-fi writers can conceive of something it must be just around the corner. They can't discern the difference between sci-fi writers conceiving faster computers and they show up, or sci fi writers conceiving lasers and they show up, with sci-fi writers conceiving of transporters beams, inter stellar travel, and alien life. Lord of the Rings is far more realistic than the latter.
WHAT??? Are you implying that start trek is FICTION?
LOL. All but the classic series!
NB to Saganistas: Robots don't count.
Why? What's the point? We need to control our security from missles or attacks on our interests around the world.
NASA and the military can provide this. What we learn from this, will give us a shot at being able to do real space exploration in 2200.
You are reaching for Mars. Mars = no breathable atmosphere, rocks, more rocks, rust, more rocks. If you want rocks from an inhospitable place I suggest that you go to antartica and gather a few. At least you will be able to breath the air.
Note: from occupied ga doesn not want to go to Mars. That's okay. Space aboard the ship is limited.
It should have been the goal *after* developing and establishing a small, manned, lunar exploration base. This would seem just common sense.
Very True! I don't want to go to Antartica either. :-)
"To which a considered response might be: go paint it on the wall of your cave. "
How many valuable, brilliant people were killed in how many other varied ways? Some of you guys are just plain nuts, or entirely intellectually dishonest.
Ever hear of the Louisiana Purchase or Louis and Clark?
The problem with manned space isn't intrinsic. It has been mired in bureaucracy and faced with severe congressional mismanagement. If you want to know why the space program languishes in irrelevency, look no further than your congressman. He hands billions to NASA, but offers no real oversight or interest in where that money is going. In fact, his main requirement of NASA is that it not attract attention, lest Dan Rather accuse him of squandering AIDS research money or stealing milk from babies.
FReegards!
C13
1) The things we learn from a lunar base will make it easier to explore further into the universe.
2) There may be many military advantages to having a manned outpost on the moon. Some of these may be known, some may not be known since technology hasn't gotten to that point yet. But when technology catches up, it would be wise to have a moon base to deploy it.
3) If we don't do it, the Red Chinese certainly will.
4) There may be raw elements located beneath the surface of the moon that could prove advantageous to whichever country owns them.
5) As trips to the moon base increase in frequency and therefore become cheaper, there will likely be commercial/private interests looking to pay for a trip to the moon.
Do you include the military? Are they a "beneficiary" since they also are on a government payroll?
What happened is that the government plundered a large number of taxpayers at gunpoint, and the some group of bureaucrats were sitting around wondering what to do with all of the ill gotten wealth decided to let some of their cronies decide to dole it out via grants.
How do you think we became this great nation? Part of it was pure research and exploration.
That is a good point. What is the value of the land encompassed by the Louisiana Purchase, compared the price we paid for? At least a thousand, if not more.
Just because *we* don't see immediate benefits to a permanent colony on the moon, it doesn't mean there won't be any in 50 or 100 years.
Anyway, I'd much rather have the moon belong to Americans rather than a bunch of communists in China, even if it is nothing more than a big rock that we can carve giant words into.
Whoever establishes a foothold there first will own the moon (unless we do and our politicians simply give it away, which is a real possibility).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.