| Keeping space for the space program
By Michael Scholten
Guest Writer
FILE PHOTO
|
The explosion of space shuttle Columbia on Saturday, Feb. 1 was a horrible tragedy. Our thoughts and condolences should first go to the families of those who lost their lives. The tragedy also raises questions concerning the importance of the program. Last week, Chimes contained an article by Co-Editor Beth Heinen titled, “Why the U.S. space program’s time is up.” Although review of the space program and its objectives are appropriate topics, Heinen’s article contains many untruths, proposes no viable solution and wrongfully attacks the very philosophy behind the program.
First, I feel it is necessary to correct the errors in the article. Heinen alleges that NASA is notorious for “keeping a low profile regarding the experiments and projects that their employees are working on.” This cannot be further from the truth. NASA’s website (www.nasa.gov) publishes a daily report of what has occurred on the shuttle. Just because popular media choose not to highlight the space shuttle activities does not mean the information is not easily accessible.
Heinen goes on to comment on NASA’s research of the physics of combustion and soot production in microgravity. She says, “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?” The error in this statement is that the Western states ravaged by wildfires this summer are still subject to the law of gravity. Furthermore, the scientific method relies on holding as many variables fixed as possible in order to study a single relationship. The chaotic reality of wildfires is incompatible with the controlled environment required for this type of research. It is unfortunate that a non-scientist who is unfamiliar with scientific research feels that she can argue against a particular experiment, calling it unnecessary. If anyone feels combustion research is extraneous, consider this: NASA’s website states that 80-90 percent of the world’s energy supply is a result of combustion of fossil fuels. It seems to me that any way to increase the efficiency of this process would be an incredible benefit to the world’s population and to the environment.
Heinen points out that research on previous shuttle missions resulted in the discovery that roses give off different scents in the absence of gravity. Industry has taken this result and created new perfumes based on these new scents. Heinen seems to allege that NASA’s sole goal on these missions was to produce “space perfume.” Research on the mission would have shown that this was just one of 59 separate scientific investigations.
Next, the article states, “NASA needs to take its talented engineers, scientists and physicists and put them to work here on earth…working towards the cures for cancer or AIDS.” Modern-day science is highly specialized. It is very unlikely that an atomic physicist could make an immediate impact in the relatively closely-related field of astrophysics, and much less on the unrelated field of disease research. Physicists are educated to do physics and biologists to do biology. It is ignorant to assume that one can make an impact on an unrelated field. It would be the same as telling a poet to write a Pulitzer Prize-winning novel.
Finally, Heinen suggests that the tax dollars headed to NASA would be better served “fixing potholes so my car’s alignment doesn’t go out of whack.” There is a fundamental problem with this statement. I am no political expert, but I am almost positive NASA is funded by the federal government, while road repairs are state and county concerns. I believe most Michigan drivers could attest to the noticeable difference in road quality while driving from Michigan to Ohio.
While Heinen’s article contains a myriad of untruths, its questioning of the viability of the space shuttle program is not incorrect. NASA is not beyond critical examination, but this critical examination must be an ongoing process, not just one that is initiated by an accident. If there is a fundamental problem, it should ideally be corrected before it results in a disaster.
Tragically, an accident has occurred. What must be done? First of all, NASA needs to embark on at least one more mission, to retrieve the three astronauts who are essentially stranded on the International Space Station (ISS). After that, I believe that NASA should critically examine its purpose and its involvement with the ISS. It has become a virtual money vacuum that has resulted in its inability to function in its designated capacity. Perhaps it would be appropriate to discontinue our involvement with the project until fulfilling its objectives is feasible.
Furthermore, the space shuttles in use are a compromise of life support for seven or eight astronauts with a freight capacity of around 20 tons. If manned space flight is still required, at the very least the transportation and freight elements should be separated. This would require a new, unmanned vessel to transport satellites and supplies into space, and a second, lighter and safer vessel for the sole purpose of transporting astronauts.
Just because the space shuttle program has some major questions to answer, it does not follow that NASA’s work is completely unimportant. The space program and the space shuttle program are not the same thing. As Heinen points out, $3.9 billion of NASA’s $15.47 billion budget (i.e. a little more than one-fourth) is devoted to the space shuttle. The primary budget expenditures of NASA include highly successful projects such as the Hubble Space Telescope and unmanned solar system exploration. While Heinen questions the importance of � kilograms of lunar samples,” one must remember that hindsight is 20-20. Scientists did not know the moon’s composition until astronauts landed there. 400 kilograms of lunar samples has given us information on the composition of the moon, which led to more accurate theories of its formation, and how the earth itself formed.
Heinen repeatedly states that she cannot see the value of NASA, and that the astronauts’ cause is unworthy. I think this is the farthest thing from honoring those that died. Obviously, each of these people was fully aware of the risk inherent in their profession. I seriously doubt that any of these people became astronauts solely for the “glorified accomplishments” of the organization, or in a “selfish pursuit of the sky.” Each of these people became astronauts because they felt a calling to be one. It seems strange that at a Christian Reformed institution like Calvin, which preaches the equal value of all professions in God’s world, one would encounter the opinion that being an astronaut is “not all that noble.” God certainly blessed these individuals with abilities in the fields of science and engineering, and far be it from us to prevent them from exercising their talents.
Furthermore, I believe that the only way one cannot see the influence of NASA on our everyday life is by ignorance. NASA offers suggestions on the current benefits of the Space Shuttle at www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/benefits. Additionally, satellites do not get into space under their own power. Cellular phones, television, GPS, national defense, ozone layer mapping and countless other modern-day conveniences would not be possible without NASA and the space shuttle placing these satellites in orbit.
Finally, those of us who are students have grown up in a world that always has had the space program. However, I am certain that if you ask a lot of scientists who grew up in the late s, they would speak of the influence of the space program on their decision to be a scientist. NASA represents more than just what it has done, it also carries with it the idea of humanity continuing to push its boundaries and see what it can accomplish. I do not think this idea’s influence is limited solely to scientists.
The ideology I find in Heinen’s article is the most disturbing to me. She implies that the science that benefits those living on earth, applied science, is more valuable than fundamental scientific research. I have encountered this philosophy quite frequently myself. Last Saturday I went out for dinner with my grandparents, and was asked to explain to my grandpa how my research as a physicist would influence him. He was more interested in how I might be able to fix Social Security, whereas Heinen is more intent on curing AIDS and cancer. Their objectives are different, but their ideology is the same: what is it going to do for me?
I believe that part of this overemphasis on applied science results from our living in a time of large problems that seemingly need our immediate attention. It seems that the cost of basic research, such as the research going on in the space shuttle, is “superfluous” and should be spent in other ways. It is easy to say, “What those scientists are studying is far away from me, it is only for their intellectual curiosity.” However, there is not a single industry today that does not make use of the results of atomic physics or of modern chemistry. In fact, the total cost of all basic research from the time of Archimedes to today will be surpassed by the value of ten days of the world’s current industrial production. It is easy to lose sight of the value of research. While I am sure some viewed Ben Franklin’s electricity research or Heisenberg’s work on quantum mechanics “superfluous” in their day, we now enjoy the benefits of their research, which include electricity and computers. Basic properties need to be understood before anyone can apply them. This goes the same for cancer and AIDS research. Scientists need to first understand how the disease/virus works before they can effectively cure it.
I believe that basic research has value in addition to mere economic and lifestyle benefits. Fundamentally, some may say that science is a way to find order in a seemingly chaotic environment. However, as Christians we may add that science is the discovery of the elegant beauty inherent in God’s creation. It is by further discovery of the intricacy God’s creation that we see more completely the care God put into the creation, and perhaps even more fully understand the mind of God.
There are numerous additional reasons to find value in basic research. I would like to point you to the article by Victor Weisskopf entitled, “The Privilege of Being a Physicist” in the February 2003 issue of Physics Today.
Finally, I believe that it is dangerous to define value in utilitarian terms. I have attempted to show how basic research in science has inherent value apart from its application. I feel the same way about basic research in the social sciences, art, philosophy, literature, religion and any discipline that has an element of pure research. It has always seemed to me that basic research is necessarily more pure than its applied counterpart because for the most part economic issues are less of an influence. As a physics major heading to graduate school this upcoming fall, I will view my future work as valuable whether or not its applications are ever discovered. I am grateful for the opportunity to exercise my talents in an ongoing attempt to more accurately understand the world God has created for us.
|
