| Why the U.S. space program's time is up
By Beth Heinen
Editor in Chief
Like many people around the nation, my day was somewhat interrupted last Saturday as news began trickling in about the Columbia explosion. I still had things to do, but I set the radio in the car to an AM news station, and when I had free time I watched CNN intently, trying to piece together what had happened. Yes, I was shocked by what had happened. But more than that, I was angry. As I watched endless footage of mourners and of the wreckage streaking across a bright blue sky, I became deeply upset that the space program, which I have long considered to be a waste of our national budget, had managed to kill seven more people…and for what?
I was five years old on Jan. 28, 1986, when the shuttle Challenger blew up 73 seconds after liftoff. Even at that tender age I was affected by the incident, mainly because only a few days prior, my family had visited Cape Canaveral and seen the shuttle on the launch pad. We still have that picture somewhere of my family standing in front of the ill-fated vehicle, my younger sister and I thrilled to be so close to “a real life space shuttle.” When I watched it blow up a few days later, I kept asking why. I don’t think my parents could answer that one.
Now it’s 17 years later, I’m 22, and my questions have grown much more complex. Why does our government continue to ferry incredible sums of money to NASA and the space program? Why is being an astronaut considered to be such a noble profession? Who cares if man has walked on the moon or if it is possible to build an aircraft that can fly up to 10 times the speed of sound? And most importantly, what is the point of the space program?
I can’t answer most of those except for the last one, for I believe that there is no point to the space program. It started out in the '60s as a rush to the moon to earn bragging rights over Russia, and has escalated into a nationally-funded way for grown people to play with billion-dollar toys and see what cool things they can do with other people’s money. Last Saturday’s crash of Columbia should be a wake-up call to NASA and to the nation that the program and its priorities need to be seriously reevaluated.
To begin with, NASA and government officials have always designated the job of astronauts and space engineers as “noble” because of their “service to all humanity,” to quote President George W. Bush in his speech given the day of the explosion. I question the validity of this statement. It seems to me that “all humanity” would be better served here on earth, where humanity resides, instead of doing mysterious things thousands of miles above our heads, where only a few venture each year.
And what exactly are these mysterious things that the space program eagerly funds year after year? If you don’t know, you’re not alone. NASA seems to be notorious for keeping a low profile regarding the experiments and projects that their employees are working on. There are the big projects, of course, like landing on the moon. But what benefit did that have for us? NASA had six successful moon landings in the late '60s and early '70s: Apollo 11, 12 and 14-17. From these, we gained “useful” data such as information on magnetic fields and almost 400 kilograms of lunar samples. It’s been 30 years since someone last landed on the moon, and I don’t think those 400 kilograms of lunar samples have significantly improved the quality of life of anyone that I know. Malice towards other countries and a desire to win regardless of cost should not be the driving forces behind a billion-dollar project devoted to reaching the moon.
Of course, there are smaller projects as well, which more “routine” missions like STS-107 – the official name of Columbia’s fatal trip – work on. STS-107 was apparently a unique mission, as it was devoted entirely to scientific projects. One of these projects involved building a large chamber and studying the physics of combustion and soot production in microgravity. According to NASA’s website this project “will provide new insights into combustion and fire-suppression that cannot be gained on earth.” In my opinion, the giant outbreak of forest fires this past summer should have given experts plenty of time to study combustion, soot and suppression. There are also plenty of ways to create a controlled area here on earth to do the same thing. Why must we fly into space to do it?
Another experiment was set up to evaluate the commercial usefulness of plant products grown in space. Other projects studied changes, due to spaceflight, on the human cardiovascular and musculoskeletal systems. How do these benefit us living on earth? They don’t, as far as I can tell.
And finally, to give a broad range of the work done on this shuttle mission, Columbia’s crew collected scent molecules from a rose and an Asian rice flower in zero-gravity. Apparently, according to MSNBC, scientists found during a 1998 shuttle experiment that miniature roses gave off different scents in zero-G — and that those scents could be re-created in factories on Earth to yield new fashion fragrances. The 1998 study resulted in a new perfume called “Zen” by Shiseido, as well as a body spray called “Impulse.”
Could it be that NASA keeps a low profile about its missions because they don’t want taxpayers to know that they are paying for the production of space perfume?
NASA needs to take its talented engineers, scientists and physicists and put them to work here on earth, where their experiments would actually be of practical use to the general public. Devote more time to combating diseases and working towards the cures for cancer or AIDS. Experiment with our vast expanse of oceans and discover how those thousands of tons of water can be used to create energy cheaply and without waste. Instead of looking to the skies and using the talents of scientists merely to see what neat things are possible in space, we need to first explore the world in which we live. Our time and intellectual energies are being wasted on things which should come secondary or tertiary to more pressing matters here on earth.
Another thing being wasted is a vast amount of money. Space flight isn’t cheap, obviously, so the fact that so much money is poured into an extravagant program every year is all the more grievous to me. As a taxpayer, I want to know that most of my tax dollars are going to worthwhile causes that will genuinely help people, like education funding or the fixing of potholes so my car’s alignment doesn’t go out of whack. Thus far, NASA and the space program in general have proven to be anything but worthwhile uses of my money.
Before the demise of Columbia, President Bush had finalized his proposed budget for 2004, which just happened to be released on Monday. Among other things, his proposal called for increasing the NASA budget to $15.47 billion, an addition of approximately $500 million, or 3 percent. In addition, Bush also proposed increasing funding for the space shuttle program itself, raising it from $3.2 billion to $3.9 billion.
If that’s not enough money for you, each space shuttle was built at the cost of approximately $2 billion per vehicle – and the United States has built five. Each shuttle mission costs roughly $500 million to fly there and back, and 113 trips have been made so far. Columbia alone flew 28 missions, including its last.
These figures are astronomically high for an organization which only seems to revel in its own, self-glorified accomplishments. It is extremely puzzling to me that our government continues to approve this much money for a superfluous program when there are thousands of other initiatives in desperate need of funding.
For example, Calvin’s website this week contains an interview with Professor Amy Patterson, who is currently researching AIDS in Africa. According to Patterson, it would take an estimated $7 to $10 billion per year, for several years, to adequately combat the global AIDS epidemic. Our own national debt is incredibly high, leading many to worry about the economic stability of our country in the years to come. Why are we continuing to throw money at NASA to test if there is wind on Mars instead of investing in things that are already problematic on earth?
This is also a lot of money to give to something this volatile in nature. The United States had, at one time, a total of five space shuttles. Since then, two of the five have exploded during missions. The odds don’t seem very good to me. John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at the George Washington University, called the Columbia incident “a slap across the face” in an interview this week with Newsweek. “This program has, aside from the costs, very significant risks,” he said. “For the second time in 17 years we have had dramatic proof of those risks. Is it worth it?”
I say that the space program is not worth it for a multitude of reasons, including its constant waste of money and lack of doing anything of real significance. However, the biggest reason I do not support NASA is because of its toll on human life. The space program puts individuals at risk daily and takes life away from people who give it to a cause unworthy of their sacrifice.
Since the space program began, 24 lives have been lost to our nation’s trivial and selfish pursuit of the sky. This includes the three men killed in the Apollo 1 launch pad fire, the astronauts on board the Challenger, and the Columbia’s crew of seven, along with numerous others who died in crashes during flight training. “These astronauts knew the dangers, and they faced them willingly, knowing they had a high and noble purpose in life,” said Bush on the day of the crash. I carry sympathy for the families of the Columbia crew, but cannot call the cause for which the astronauts worked a noble one. Billions of dollars have been wasted, lives have been lost…and for what? For bragging rights in the race to the moon. For 400 kilograms of lunar samples. For reports on the commercial usefulness of space-grown plants. For new perfume scents.
Although the first casualty occurred already back in 1964, when astronaut Theodore Freeman crashed during a training mission, this week’s Newsweek cover still reads, “Not Again.” The time for saying “not again” should have been years ago, after the Apollo 1 fire, or certainly after the Challenger. If the demise of the Columbia tells us anything, it should be telling the nation that we need to say “never again” to the space program. Never again should we allow another tragedy like the Columbia to happen. America needs to step back from its silly obsession with space and reevaluate its priorities. Our money should be flowing to places and programs with genuine need. NASA’s scientists and engineers should be focusing their time and efforts on fully understanding the earth’s resources before looking to the skies.
A wake-up call has been sounded. It is time to end the nation’s love affair with the space program. I’ve already watched it kill 14 people in my lifetime, and I don’t want to be around to see any more explosions in the sky.
|
