Beyond Planet Earth
Far out.
The Hubble telescope was pointed at a really small area of black space and over 400 orbits it recorded 800 exposures lasting 11.3 days. This is very far back in time. Experts believe it to be “the time shortly after the big bang when the first stars reheated the cold, dark universe.”
The final image (above), which shows around 10,000 galaxies, is in fact two separate images taken by Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-object Spectrometer (NICMOS). The NICMOS reveals the farthest galaxies ever seen.
Although the hi-tech Hubble Telescope has enhanced our understanding of astronomy, the astronomical cost is nothing to be proud of. Originally estimated at a total cost of $400 million, “…US expenditure is currently an estimated 4.5 to 6 billion US$” (Hubble Information Centre). That's billion. And they haven't finished with it yet. Why is this allowed to happen? Does it matter? And to be specific, does it matter to you?
Do you know what astronomy is all about? Why does space exploration happen?
“Why do we study the planets? Why do we study astronomy at all? We someday need to go beyond the planet Earth if we expect to survive as a species for a very long time. We need to know what’s out there and what the nature of the Universe is” (Meers Openheim, Boston University).
So now we know. In general terms it's claimed that space exploration tells us a lot about our planet and its environment. But we have a right to question the value and practical usefulness of much of this knowledge. To what extent does it impact and enrich our daily lives? And even if we reap tangible benefits, are they all really worth the colossal expenditure? How much money needs to be spent? Shouldn't we be asking what scientific research can actually accomplish here on Planet Earth by comparison?
These space scientists are the gurus – we want to believe they have the skills and the deep knowledge that's grounded in documented experimentation and tests. But should we accept their opinions and recommendations? Have they shared knowledge and research findings among themselves, bonded together in one big fraternity and essentially confirmed one another's legitimacy? Shouldn't they be much more accountable to those outside the loop?
Should we really be spending billions in the hope we can secure our long-term survival "out there"? Is it right to do so? Should entrenched space exploration philosophy be supported and funded by our governments to the current extent? Finding real answers to these questions isn't easy for the common man. Some with their feet rooted firmly on the ground remain unconvinced by many of the pro-space arguments they are hearing. Are the doubters just uninformed philistines, or have astronomy and space exploration been out of control for decades?
Many are not entranced by this thrilling ride into space. On the contrary, they have legitimate concerns. They don't "need to know what's out there". They are much more concerned with what's going on down here. They often think the world would have been a better place if the hundreds of billions that have been spent on space exploration and research had been intelligently funnelled into health, care of the elderly, emergency services, education, the Third World, urban development and local community programmes. Those in favour of space exploration are tired hearing this line of reasoning. We wonder why it is they hear it over and over, year after year. Maybe there's something to it.
There's sometimes a lot wrong with how governments allocate funds. But even so, if the will is there to stand up and make brave decisions, prioritisation strategies become essential. Recent history shows that few politicians1 have grasped the nettle. We shouldn't wonder at this — political clout matters to leading space scientists. If nothing else many of their jobs may depend on it! It doesn’t help that space program ideology is deeply entrenched in our western psyche and actual infrastructures are well established.
Pegging back the world's unnecessary budgeting habits has become a reality, thanks to the global financial downturn. It must have been bad news for proponents of space exploration. We need to get funding that’s firstly centered on our earthly problems rather then falling into the trap of spending billions trying to solve heavenly riddles. It's hardly realistic or helpful to suggest the two can run side-by-side.
Advocates of space exploration and research will quickly point to the number of people who are employed in the industry. "Jobs are good," they say. Well yes, but is this a totally valid line of reasoning? Not really. Couldn't we justify pornography in much the same way? In California alone the porn industry employs 12,000 people, but unlike many space-related initiatives it isn’t financed by vast sums of public money. Both are addictive and controversial.
The "Wow!" factor of space bewitches even intelligent people. (It happened to me, if I qualify as intelligent.) It's fantastic! It's right next door to science fiction! In fact, the distinction between the two may get a little blurred. We need to step back. We may not need to boldly go anywhere.
The Hubble Telescope
Speaking to protesters before the launch of Apollo 11 in 1969, Thomas Paine, NASA’s administrator, said, “…if we could solve the problems of poverty by not pushing the button to launch men to the moon tomorrow, then we would not push that button.” At best this is a peculiar logic, justifying a massive and questionable expense ($35 billion) because it would allegedly have little impact if spent differently. Is that the point? And of course, the issue isn’t just poverty. Cherished predilections can easily blind us to the bigger picture.
Paine, who was already getting carried away thinking of a $10 billion trip to Mars2, suggested to the protesters that NASA might be able to help address our problems some day. But what do we find? Four decades later we continue to hand out billions to space scientists so they can satisfy their curiosity. Exploring Saturn's biggest moon Titan is a particularly good example.
Let’s not forget that the outrageously expensive space race of the 50s and 60s was fuelled by Cold War paranoia. Everything possible was done to better the perceived achievements of the Red Menace in Moscow. Prestige was paramount. A huge amount of cash was handed over to scientists and the military to further develop the V-2 rockets originally designed in Nazi Germany and dropped with deadly warheads on Britain. Sound scientific reasoning was virtually nonexistent, not that it mattered. Getting a man on the Moon became synonymous with global superiority:
Prestige, a thing which neither filled bellies, nor kept people warm, nor kept predators at bay, was suddenly the number one priority of an embattled nation... If the United States wanted to regain world prestige lost to the Russians because of their achievements in space, it should embark now on a trip to the moon. Here was a race that Americans might just be able to win...
Few paused to consider how walking around on the Moon in a space suit brought progress to mankind. How, exactly did it help the starving in Africa?...
Whitney Young of the National Urban League, commented at the time... “A circus act. A marvellous trick that leaves their poverty untouched. It will cost thirty-five billion dollars to put two men on the Moon. It would take ten billion to lift every poor person in this country above the official poverty standard this year. Something is wrong somewhere” (Gerard DeGroot, Dark Side of the Moon: The Magnificent Madness of the American Lunar Quest).
On the 12th September 1962 President Kennedy made a speech in which he famously said, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade..." But in private he asked his advisers, "Can you fellows invent some other race here on Earth that will do some good?" (Rocket Men, by Craig Nelson.)
I once came across an online essay that attempted to defend space exploration expenditure by highlighting how others spend their cash and how governments generally allocate funds. The author (a big fan of science fiction it should be noted) defended space 'investment' by pointing to society’s wastefulness in general. An astonishing opinion when you think it through. Two wrongs will never make a right, not even in space. Why not justify NASA's funding by highlighting the fact that the Pentagon's annual space budget costs even more? No, we must assess this problem on its own merit.
(As an aside on the subject of waste — several years ago "workers at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama accidentally threw away parts of the International Space Station worth almost $1 million" [James Oberg, Houston, we have a problem, New Scientist magazine, April 2000]. And let's not forget the $100,000 toolkit lost in space.3)
No doubt somebody will pull text off the pro-space sites and tell us that we’ve got better frying pans (a myth in fact), stronger hip replacement joints and indestructible materials for bulletproof jackets worn in Iraq, or whatever it is. Someone’s sure to mention how lucrative moon-mining could be. Of course, it's not all bad news.
It’s true that we now have thermal blankets (opportunistically shown by NASA to be useful for earthquake victims), improved defence technologies and scientific satellites providing indispensable telecommunications and vitally monitoring earth’s weather patterns and solar storms. We can appreciate such benefits. But the glowing PR can have a hollow ring to those not compromised by bias.
The claims that there have been over 1000 spin-offs are probably accurate, but where in the world are we going if we think such productivity gives credence to the lavishly financed space sciences? It's both logical and realistic to assume that billions can be intelligently and systematically ploughed into scientific invention and innovation here on terra firma. We really don't need the prop of most space-related endeavours to get the job done, so crowing about it can be considered something of a ruse.
The selfish need to do stuff in space is the mother of NASA’s contributions. It's a fact that there are brainy highly qualified people wearing hairnets in labs who will deliver similar results in most fields if only they could get the resources they need. When Hitler took a shine to Europe big brains came up with some great technological advances to drive him back into his bunker. But no one's relying on WW3 for the next far-reaching wave of revolutionary science and engineering. Perhaps we shouldn't be looking into space either.
And bringing things right up to date, NASA’s4 gone back to Hubble and if they can they will blast off again to the Moon… Will financial restraints finally stop them?
Spotty Jupiter
Sorry, but it just won’t do. The tangible returns from decades of commitment to space projects are pitiful when measured against the mind-boggling expense. The next time you get a thrill from seeing exciting pictures taken in space, stop a moment to remember that the earth is still riddled with problems we need to solve as soon as possible.
Space exploration is an arresting subject. It’s certainly interesting seeing pictures from the edge of the universe. It was fun watching the Great Red Spot swirling about in Jupiter’s poisonous soup. But my mother just lost a lifelong friend to cancer.
|
1 "The Space Shuttle is the most effective device known to man for destroying dollar bills" (congressman Dana Rohrabacher).
2 It's worrying that someone in such a position of authority as Paine should fantasize about getting to Mars as early as 1983. Today such a mission would cost $100s billions. If it never happens $100s millions will probably be wasted in R&D.
3 In November 2008 spacewalker Heidemarie Stefanyshyn-Piper let a tool bag float off into space. "Despite my little hiccup, or major hiccup, I think we did a good job out there," she said.
4 To date* NASA (an agency of the United States government) has received over $430 billion (actual dollars) since it was established in 1958. It currently gets a staggering $17 billion each year from the United States federal budget. Its percentage of the overall budget is low, a fact used by many supporters of space sciences and exploration to justify the expense. But, inevitably, they present the stats in reverse to serve their bias. It's a colossal government budget to start with. Emphasising NASA's 'small' .7% share can never mask the fact that annually it soaks up a huge amount of public money.
*2009
