[meteorite-list] The space program after Bush

From: Mark Crawford <mark_at_meteoritecentral.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 21:18:23 +0000
Message-ID: <47950C1F.6080703_at_meteorites.cc>

I have to admit I'm torn over this one. In terms of bang-per-buck
(certainly in the short- to mid-term), there's no question that unmanned
orbiters/landers can generate more science, and investigate more
targets, than manned flight will over the next couple of decades. In a
bunfight over funding (and the US is by no means alone in squeezing
science budgets - witness, eg, the threatened UK withdrawal from the
Isaac Newton Telescope, among others) it's difficult to argue for a moon
base.

On the other hand, it's impossible to put a value on the human
imperative. How many people were inspired by the Apollo program? What
contribution towards the easing of the Cold War was made by the
Apollo-Soyuz missions? What is the worth of millions of people being
lifted from the daily routine by following the construction of the ISS,
or watching flares as it passes overhead? (All rhetorical questions, btw).

And in the long-term, /of course/ manned flight is the way forward. As
the list knows as well as anyone, this planet is too vulnerable to have
all our human eggs in one basket. There's also the small matter of the
technologies generated by getting to, habitising, and working off-world.

But if I had to spend a limited pot of money now, as I say, I'd be torn.
I guess I'd end up with some half-baked compromise, trying to cover the
options and support both. Which isn't far from where we are in
actuality, I suppose.

Mark

Michael L Blood wrote:
> on 1/21/08 6:26 AM, E.P. Grondine at epgrondine at yahoo.com wrote:
>
>
>> The only reason to go to the Moon
>>
> With whatever one were to follow such a statement, it would be
> Exceedingly short sighted to say the least.
>

-- 
Mark's Meteorite Pages: http://meteorites.cc

Received on Mon 21 Jan 2008 04:18:23 PM PST