|
|
|
| Current Issue |
|
|
| Resources |
|
|
|
Humans In Space: Worth the Cost?: Nothing Can Replace Being There
| Article
# : |
19977 |
|
|
Section : |
CURRENT ISSUES
|
| Issue
Date : |
8 / 1992 |
1,976 Words |
| Author
: |
John M. Logsdon
John M. Logsdon is director of the Space Policy Institute of
the Elliott School of International Affairs at George
Washington University in Washington, D.C. He is the author of
The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the
National Interest and a member of Vice President Quayle's
Space Policy Advisory Board |
What justifies the costs and risks of putting humans in space? This is perhaps the central question in the current debate over the future of the U.S. space program. Debates over continued use of the space shuttle, the development of a space station, and human travel to the Moon and then to Mars all hinge on an assessment of the value of human presence in Earth orbit and beyond. More than two-thirds of the NASA budget is linked to human space flight in one way or the other; is this allocation of resources a product of historical and institutional inertia, or are there compelling reasons for continuing to spend public funds to put people in space?
Certainly the United States will continue to carry out unmanned space activities of practical value, like Earth observation and satellite communications. Almost as certainly, the United States will continue using robotic spacecraft for scientific research. There seems to be a strong consensus that science in and from space has high social merit, even if it does not produce tangible payoffs other than new knowledge. However, more than 30 years after the first human went into orbit and more than two decades after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin took humanity's first tentative steps off its home planet, there is no consensus regarding the reasons that justify a continuing program of human spaceflight. Why?
Skepticism
In the 1960s only a few people questioned the value of sending humans to the Moon, but in the 1970s and '80s many have questioned the utility of placing humans in low Earth orbit. Despite occasional spectacular successes like the recent rescue of the Intelsat 6 satellite, some say the contributions of humans as experimenters, observers, or operators have not justified the high costs of placing them in space, providing them life support, and returning them safely to Earth.
However, the civilian space program has links to purposes that include but transcend the utilitarian. It is those broader purposes that are particularly well served by the human component. The space program is a visible symbol of U.S. world leadership; its challenges and accomplishments motivate scientific and technical excellence among U.S. students, and it provides for a diverse American population a sense of common national accomplishment and shared pride. The excitement surrounding the recent rescue mission certainly demonstrates this point. These are important payoffs from any government activity; just because they are not easily measurable does not mean that they are real. But even these payoffs
...
Read Full Article
Look for this article in Ask.com
|
|
