Space experiments should be done on the cheap
We rarely learn anything Earth-shaking from space labs, says Philip Ball - which is why inexpensive missions like Foton-M3 are the way to go.
Space experiments have rarely seemed as much fun as they did on the European Space Agency's Foton-M3 mission, which blasted off two weeks ago from Russia for a 12-day spell in low-Earth orbit.
Comments
I think that many scientists don't realize (forget? ignore..) that manned space exploration is a not a matter of science, but of the human heart and soul. The need to explore and to have a frontier beyond which lies mystery, danger (and gain) is a fundamentally human characteristic.
Gathering scientific information is not the reason for space missions, it's just the most plausible excuse for what we'd want to do anyway. Scientists should stop trying to hijack the space effort toward narrow scientific goals, and realize that they are not masters of, but participants in, the greatest adventure humanity has ever undertaken. Speaking only for myself, I would still support manned space exploration even if the only result was the explorer's written and video report of his/her visit to an alien environment.
Posted by: Jim Savino | September 28, 2007 05:43 PM
Space exploration may be a matter of the "human heart and soul," but to use that as a justification for the amount of money spent on something that does not give many returns is irresponsible. I understand that it's a great morale booster, but as Mr. Ball wrote we really should try to learn as much as we can about the environment of outer space using automated or robotic systems before sending people out into it.
Posted by: Todd Quinton | October 1, 2007 05:00 PM
This hostility to the manned space program by those who believe in fundamental science is typical but misguided. It rejects the notion that manned spaceflight is an goal in itself: that much of the space research we do is in preparation for a future where man expands away from the home world.
Moreover, the unmanned space program is intimately tied to the manned one. Most of the original space research was a spinoff of preparations for the Apollo mission. The American manned spaceflight program virtually ceased for most of the 1970's and most of the unmanned program went with it. The few science missions that survived used surplus equipment to get off the ground. It was the resumption of the manned program that revived basic space science.
The argument also contains the mistaken assumption that if we weren't spending so much on manned spaceflight, we'd be spending it on something more worthwhile - like fundamental research, or a cure for cancer or an end to poverty.
We could spend our money on "more noble" pursuits, but the fact is we don't. We'll drop a trillion dollars on a war, or on weapons systems that never get off the ground, or on bridges to nowhere. Cancel the manned space program and you haven't cured cancer, you've paid for a few weeks of the Iraq debacle.
Posted by: Jinchi | October 1, 2007 07:35 PM
Whilst it is obviously wise not to be profligate with space missions, NASA showed how disastrous excessive cost cutting zeal can be when two Mars missions came to nothing in the space of a year, with the Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter both crashing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/686674.stm
Posted by: David McCulloch | October 2, 2007 10:42 AM