"What have 42 years of astronomically expensive manned space flight shown other than how many times we can circle the Earth? What's the cost-benefit ratio? What's NASA's annual $15 billion budget brought us? I mean other than Tang and Velcro. (...) It's time to think about these things. And ask tough questions. And slip the surly bonds of Congress and smack the face of NASA."
--John Baer, "Is NASA Lost in Space?", Philadelphia Daily News, Feb. 3, 2003
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."--Leonardo da Vinci
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit. -- Dr. Stephen Hawking So are we faced with a dilemma, who will take us to Mars? Will it be the big nasty money grubbing corporations or the big nasty corrupted bureaucratic government? If this is the question, my heart fills with joy because frankly I don't care, as long as we get there! But if the question is whether or not to explore, to completely abandon the prospects of humans in space, then I say, that could possibly be the most damaging thing to our society. We have a wanderlust. From the trees of northern Africa, we have propagated ourselves throughout this world, and recently to the outskirts, like no other. This need to explore is a healthy aspect of our nature. When the Challenger exploded, my heart sank, not only for the life lost but also for the progress lost in exploration. Missions were canceled while NASA tried to figure out what went wrong. With the loss of the Columbia, and this new spark to the old debate, my feelings remain the same. What are we doing in space anyway; NASA is only an relic of the Cold War. I'll tell you what we're doing, we are advancing ourselves in ways that neither you nor I can comprehend. Why take the risk of coming out of the trees? Why take the risk of crossing the Bering land bridge? Why take the risk of sailing to the New World? And why take the risk of flying across the Atlantic? Did these risk takers have any idea how much they were contributing to the future of the human race? On the other hand, fear can cause us to take steps backwards. One of the most tragic events pertaining to human transportation was the crash of the Hindenburg. Airships make much more sense than conventional aviation in several regards. But when the Hindenburg exploded into a fireball, there were plenty of reporters around to take pictures for the newspapers and show how unsafe Zeppelins were. After World War II, my grandfather was a test pilot for the US Navy. He was the first pilot to survive flying one particular model. If he would have ejected two seconds later than he did, I would have never been born. He did this voluntarily, with the knowledge that he was helping to make the future better and safer for the rest of us in some small way. The three pilots who died before him felt this same way or they would have never gotten into the cockpit. We will make it to Mars and continue from there. That is not a question, the only question is when. My hopes are that this comes about within my lifetime. See, since I was a little boy I've wanted to go to Mars, not just to visit, but to live...to colonize. I have discussed it with my wife, if we have the opportunity we will go to Mars. I don't necessarily think unmanned missions have been a waste of time. Progress was made with each of these from Sputnik to Pathfinder. But were they as significant as the missions John Glenn or Neil Armstrong participated in? Machines will only take us so far. At some point, people will need to take the risk. I will tell you right now, more people will die before we reach the stars. I may even be one of them. But that is the price we pay for our future.
To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit. -- Dr. Stephen Hawking
So are we faced with a dilemma, who will take us to Mars? Will it be the big nasty money grubbing corporations or the big nasty corrupted bureaucratic government? If this is the question, my heart fills with joy because frankly I don't care, as long as we get there! But if the question is whether or not to explore, to completely abandon the prospects of humans in space, then I say, that could possibly be the most damaging thing to our society. We have a wanderlust. From the trees of northern Africa, we have propagated ourselves throughout this world, and recently to the outskirts, like no other. This need to explore is a healthy aspect of our nature.
When the Challenger exploded, my heart sank, not only for the life lost but also for the progress lost in exploration. Missions were canceled while NASA tried to figure out what went wrong. With the loss of the Columbia, and this new spark to the old debate, my feelings remain the same. What are we doing in space anyway; NASA is only an relic of the Cold War. I'll tell you what we're doing, we are advancing ourselves in ways that neither you nor I can comprehend.
Why take the risk of coming out of the trees? Why take the risk of crossing the Bering land bridge? Why take the risk of sailing to the New World? And why take the risk of flying across the Atlantic? Did these risk takers have any idea how much they were contributing to the future of the human race?
On the other hand, fear can cause us to take steps backwards. One of the most tragic events pertaining to human transportation was the crash of the Hindenburg. Airships make much more sense than conventional aviation in several regards. But when the Hindenburg exploded into a fireball, there were plenty of reporters around to take pictures for the newspapers and show how unsafe Zeppelins were.
After World War II, my grandfather was a test pilot for the US Navy. He was the first pilot to survive flying one particular model. If he would have ejected two seconds later than he did, I would have never been born. He did this voluntarily, with the knowledge that he was helping to make the future better and safer for the rest of us in some small way. The three pilots who died before him felt this same way or they would have never gotten into the cockpit.
We will make it to Mars and continue from there. That is not a question, the only question is when. My hopes are that this comes about within my lifetime. See, since I was a little boy I've wanted to go to Mars, not just to visit, but to live...to colonize. I have discussed it with my wife, if we have the opportunity we will go to Mars. I don't necessarily think unmanned missions have been a waste of time. Progress was made with each of these from Sputnik to Pathfinder. But were they as significant as the missions John Glenn or Neil Armstrong participated in? Machines will only take us so far. At some point, people will need to take the risk. I will tell you right now, more people will die before we reach the stars. I may even be one of them. But that is the price we pay for our future.
We are all saddened by the loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia and her crew, and some of us still remember Challenger. Fewer still remember the names Grissom, White and Chaffee - but without their sacrifices and the incredible efforts of the entire aerospace programme, we would not have reaped the benefits: world-wide broadcasts, cell phone technology, massive improvements in audio and imaging technologies... In fact, it's solely thanks to the Space Programme that we even have an accurate topographical map of the Earth! Naysayers declare that risking "precious human lives" is unacceptable - but what about all the lives that have been saved, thanks to improvements in heart pumps, UV protection, and even rescue equipment! Countless lives have been saved thanks to modern advances in surgical equipment, firefighting gear and other lifesaving devices.
While the cost in money may be great, the benefits to humanity are far greater. Keep the Space Programme!
To refute tdent a bit: Most of the useful things in spaced are unmanned - but they got there because someone put them there. And in many cases, human interaction is a necessity in the proper deployment, capture and repair of those - the Hubble telescope is a perfect example of this. Human engineering is not yet sufficiently "perfect" to create a robotic system that can substitute for human flexibility and ingenuity when dealing with unknown or unexpected variables. In Mercury 4, Gemini 8 and Apollo 13 the ability of the crews to react to unexpected situations salvaged the missions - missions that would have been completely lost if unmanned.
Human presence in space is also a requirement if we are ever going to understand and be prepared for the rigors of long-term space travel - the next great leap. True, we are in a bit of a rut with the current Shuttle-to-ISS runs, but if we are ever to expand our horizons beyond the moon and to the stars, we must first conquer the space around us.
There are those that feel that any loss of life is an unacceptable cost. If that were true, we should never have explored beyond our own caves. "Those who live like turtles see little but their own shells." Life, in itself, is a risk, and to advance ourselves as a species, we must explore and expand our horizons, ever outward, at the risk of stagnating and dying. Truly, however, the choice is not mine. Ultimately, the decision is made by the astronauts - it is THEIR choice to climb into those capsules and Shuttles, and they do it in the hopes of advancing mankind. As Mercury 7 astronaut Gus Grissom said: "If we die, we want people to accept it. We're in a risky business, and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life."
printable version chaos
Everything2 Help
cooled by jessicapierce