The
Case for Space
why space exploration should not stop
I'VE FINALLY accepted that NASA isn't going to return my calls.
Or take me up on my offer to scrub toilets, wash windows,
flip burgers -- or do anything else -- in exchange for a lift
into space. So I've learned to be happy with the piece of
our nation's space program that I've got in my kitchen: the
smoke detector.
 It's
almost like having a souvenir from space, or maybe a consolation
prize. It might also save my life someday. And every time
I look up and see that tiny NASA invention, I'm reminded of
space and the whirling debate over whether exploring beyond
Earth is worthwhile.
"Guessing at the dollar worth of space programs is like
trying to gauge how a starving person might boost the economy.
If we feed him, will he become a good worker and solid citizen,
shop at Wal-Mart, and buy a new car every five years?"
Smoke detectors are great; they save lives. But space exploration
and science aren't about building gadgets. We explore space
to expand human thought, and that's why we should continue.
After the space shuttle Columbia exploded, last February,
killing all seven astronauts aboard, President Bush delivered
one of his more eloquent speeches. While lamenting the dead,
he said: "The cause in which they died will continue.
Mankind is led into the darkness beyond our world by the inspiration
of discovery and the longing to understand. Our journey into
space will go on."
I don't often agree with the president, but he saw the larger
cause and framed it simply, even elegantly. The urge to explore,
discover and learn is reason enough to push beyond Earth's
grip. Unfortunately, though, when the shock of Columbia's
loss softened, the debate over space sank back into a squabble
over money.
It's popular to describe space programs as the hubris of
a rich nation spending on lofty, impractical dreams. Critics
argue that NASA's cash should be spent feeding the homeless
or fighting poverty.
These are noble goals, but they're no more realistic or practical
than space exploration. Strip NASA's $15 billion budget, sell
a couple of space shuttles on eBay, and what would you have?
Not enough to care for the poor in this country, never mind
elsewhere. It's a mistake to frame the argument in terms of
space programs versus social programs, as if every dollar
spent on a Mars rover somehow means a turkey dinner yanked
from a hungry child.
| Guessing
at the dollar worth of space programs is like trying to
gauge how a starving person might boost the economy. If
we feed him, will he become a good worker and solid citizen,
shop at Wal-Mart, and buy a new car every five years? |
Why, then, does the cry of "Waste!" so often follow
events such as the president's recent announcement that he
wants to put a base on the moon and humans on Mars? Why pick
on space spending when the Department of Defense stands to
receive $380 billion next year?
Perhaps people think of space exploration as a rock-star
stunt or extreme sport: colorful and amusing, but dangerous
and sort of pointless. Maybe NASA seems like an easy target
because it's so "out there." NASA is, after all,
one of the only federal agencies charged with having any sort
of vision. Explaining visionary projects is tough in a culture
that prides itself on common sense and practicality.
There are plenty of reasons to suport space science. Inventions
such as smoke detectors and lesser-known medical and firefighting
technologies are obviously valuable. Another pro-space argument
centers on preventing the total militarization of space. NASA,
as a civilian administration, is the best balance against
military domination of the heavens. International cooperation
also thrives in space and should continue -- particularly
with an eye to drafting the laws that will govern space.
If you insist on economic- or social-activist points of view,
none of these reasons probably justifies NASA spending. Then
again, feeding, clothing and sheltering the millions doesn't
make much economic sense, either.
Guessing at the dollar worth of space programs is like trying
to gauge how a starving person might boost the economy. If
we feed him, will he become a good worker and solid citizen,
shop at Wal-Mart, and buy a new car every five years? Feeding
people isn't about economics. Neither is space exploration.
The best argument for continuing space research embraces
the concept of exploration itself.
First, let it never be said that we risk everything traveling
into the cold vacuum beyond Earth simply "because it's
there." Legendary explorers rarely risked their lives
for such vague goals.
Columbus suspected that the world wasn't flat, but he didn't
set sail merely to prove it. Lewis and Clark headed west for
national pride and economic ambition. Modern marine explorer
and University of Rhode Island Prof. Robert Ballard, locater
of the Titanic and discoverer of never-before-seen life forms
in the deep ocean, once said of exploration: "You see
a lot of stunts today, but if you're not doing worthwhile
science, you're not an explorer; you're just wandering around."
Great explorers and great journeys, whether across the ocean
or into space, are necessary the same way that artists, musicians
and thinkers are necessary: to push human thought -- notoriously
resistant to new ideas -- beyond its comfort zone. Any teacher
will tell you that this is where discovery and learning take
place.
In the face of critics, doubters and dangers, Columbus, Lewis
and Clark, and Ballard fundamentally changed our understanding
of Earth and life itself. Space exploration will undoubtedly
take us further. It's part scientific research, part economic
opportunity, and part national pat on the back.
But really it's an evolutionary journey -- one that we simply
can't refuse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on this column or space exploration in general?
Write us.
|
