Published: July 30, 2006 11:07 am      

Faceoff: Man or robots in space?

Times-News staffers Dave Boden and Richard Kerns debate an issue of interest to our readers. (Opinions expressed by the two are not necessarily those of the Times-News.)

This week's topic:

The Space Debate

Two years ago, President Bush unveiled a new vision for space exploration based on: completing construction of the International Space Station by 2010; designing a new manned space vehicle to replace the Space Shuttle by 2014; and mounting a return trip to the moon by 2020. A lunar base would then be developed as a launching pad for further exploration, including an eventual manned trip to Mars.

Subsequent NASA budgets have been geared to those goals.

"We do not know where this journey will end," the president said in announcing his Vision for Space Exploration program, "yet we know this: Human beings are headed into the cosmos."

However, critics in the scientific community say the focus on large, manned “flagship” missions is undermining funding support for robotic exploration and other research-oriented projects.

While the Bush administration has proposed a 3.2 percent increase in NASA’s budget for fiscal 2007, to $16.8 billion, funding for science programs will be cut by $3.1 billion from 2006-2010, as a result of the new priorities.

THE QUESTION:

Should the U.S. emphasize manned space flight or robotic missions to space?

Robots
Richard Kerns

Not satisfied with screwing up the nation and the world, George W. Bush has extended his foul reach to the very heavens with a backward-looking plan for space exploration that harms science and threatens the U.S.’s pre-eminent role on the final frontier.

More than four decades ago, John F. Kennedy boldly set the nation on a course that would culminate with Neil Armstrong’s “giant leap” onto the surface of the moon. In his “We choose to go the moon” speech, JFK said, “This country was conquered by those who moved forward — and so will space.”

W, though, is stuck in reverse. One of the signature goals of the space initiative he laid out in January, 2004, is a return to the moon. It is no surprise that the proposal lacks the panache of that earlier effort. Been there, done that.

Just once, I’d like to see this poor excuse for a president do something intelligent, cost efficient and not calculated for political effect. The plodding plan he set forth for space is none of the above: Complete the dubious space station we shouldn’t have built in the first place, at untold billions of dollars. Build a new generation space shuttle for many billions more. And finally, build a moon base from which to launch a future mission to Mars — I’ll bet the no-bid, $100 zillion contract goes to Haliburton.

As with all-things-Bush, today’s debate prompts a “What if” pause, as in, “What if Americans possessed the collective sense of a walnut, and hadn’t elected such a dolt to the White House?”

Most importantly, 2,569 Americans who have needlessly fallen in Iraq would be alive today. But also, one would hope, the nation would have a forward-looking space program to challenge and inspire our greatest scientific minds, leverage our technological prowess, expand our knowledge of the cosmos, push the envelope of our technical ability, and thrill the populace to boot.

Ironically, such a program is already in place, and smack dab on the chopping block thanks to our feckless leader.

This morning, as those of Republican persuasion choke down my words with their Aunt Jemima “Freedom Toast,” the Spirit and Opportunity rovers tool about Mars, performing detailed geologic analysis and beaming back pictures of the Martian landscape. The same month that Bush outlined his myopic “vision” for space, the two rovers landed on Mars, hitting their landing zones in what one scientist described as a “300 million-mile hole in one.” The golf-cart-sized vehicles were expected to last 90 days. Eight-hundred days later, they’re still going. Visit the Web site http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html to be amazed.

To my mind, such an achievement is every bit as awe inspiring as the original landing on the moon. The tire tracks of Spirit and Opportunity represent mankind’s footprint every bit as much as Neil Armstrong’s boots.

Beyond Mars, the Cassini-Huygens explorer circles Saturn and its moon Titan. Most recently, it snapped photos of “great lakes” on Titan filled with “hydrocarbon liquids.” Visit http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.cfm.

Elsewhere, the Ulysses probe studies the sun’s north and south poles, and the New Horizons probe, launched in January, hurtles toward a 2015 rendezvous with Pluto. Similar probes have explored planets, comets, magnetic fields and other mysteries of space. The combined cost of three such missions — Stardust, Deep Impact and New Horizons — is about $1.3 billion, or about the average cost of one space shuttle mission.

Two of our earliest probes, Voyager 1 and 2 launched in 1977, are now 9 billion and 7 billions miles from earth — the farthest reach of any object ever made by man — approaching the unknown edge of the solar system, and transmitting data back to NASA all the way.

In the insane logic of the bean counters doing Bush’s bidding, NASA last year threatened to cut the $4.2 million annual cost of monitoring the Voyager probes. “There are no other plans to reach the edge of the solar system,” said one scientist on the project. “Now we’re getting all this new information, and here comes NASA saying, ‘We want to pull the plug.’”

The same logic has driven NASA to abandon the Hubble telescope, which needs a shuttle mission to replace gyroscopes and perform maintenance. But with virtually all of the remaining shuttle missions dedicated to the space station, Hubble is being left to die. NASA is also cutting university research grants critical to attracting the next generation of scientists.

It all makes perfect sense in the alternate universe Bushies occupy. Maybe when Capt. Kirk wraps up his mission to explore strange new worlds, he’ll swing by this ever-stranger old one and have Spock mind-meld some sense into Dave and the rest of the Red State masses. Hopefully before election day...

Man
Dave Boden

I suspect that some of you may be quite surprised by the positions that Dick and I have taken on this week’s topic and with that stated, I must also admit that I too was a little surprised with Dick’s stance on this topic. When he first e-mailed me and suggested this topic as one we might consider for our Sunday Faceoff, I was certain that it would end up similar to other topics (like socialized medicine and smoking in bars) that we have been unable to use in our weekly debate.

On this occasion, rather than e-mailing Dick back as to my initial thoughts on the topic (which you are reading today), I instead opted to use the legs God gave me and headed over to Dilbertville and locate which cubicle he was bunkered down in so we could discuss a few other topics that we might be able to use for Faceoff. To my surprise we were at opposite ends on this topic… so it was going to work. This is to say that we could hold true to the most important element of Faceoff, which is that neither Dick nor I have never taken a stance or defended a principle which has not been representative of our own beliefs.

By the way, just in case you’re curious, my little buddy and I both think every American is entitled to the same health care coverage that President Bush and John Kerry receive and we also agree that smokers should be permitted to fire-up while enjoying a few cold ones at their favorite pub.

Now on to the topic at hand … 5, 4, 3, 2, 1… we have lift-off!

A quote in James R. Hansen’s book, First Man: The Life of Neil A. Armstrong, attributes Neil Armstrong as stating: "I think we are going to the Moon because it is in the nature of the human being to face challenges. It's by the nature of his deep inner soul. We're required to do these things just as salmon swim upstream.”

While I do most definitely concur with Armstrong that it is in man’s nature to see what is on the other side, I also believe that there are a few other reasons to continue manned space flights. By continuing to explore space and the possibilities of establishing colonies on the moon, or elsewhere, we not only cross new boundaries, but also better protect our current world.

While I am almost certain that my little buddy is going to do his best to persuade you into believing that we could solve world hunger or find a cure for a yet unnamed disease with the money we could save by abandoning all manned space exploration, the reality is that less than one half of a percent of our nation’s total budget is being directed towards our space program. As the United States continues to receive a very good return its investment in our space program, NASA may actually be one of the best examples of “money-well-spent” by our federal government.

This small portion of our federal budget (that is used at NASA) insures that we continue to be on the cutting edge of technology, which benefits us, both in outer space and here on earth. Any serious deviation from our current financial commitment to our nation’s space exploration programs will almost certainly damage our ability to maintain our position of dominance on our planet earth.

Just as world leaders in the 17th and 18th centuries knew that their nations’ might was determined by their ability to control the seas around them and to explore new worlds beyond their own, the current leaders of our country know that our ability to develop new technologies for use in the exploration of our universe (and even those beyond it) will allow us to maintain our status as the most powerful country on earth.

This is not only important to Americans, but to all mankind, as we are a people of peace, who share the rewards of our standing with those in need all over our planet.

There are many benefits to continuing manned space flights. The main one is that by placing astronauts and scientists on manned space missions, we are able to more accurately conduct tests and experiments for the purpose of gaining more accurate results that provide us with information that is exponentially greater than if we simply collected samples and brought them back to earth for study.

Dick, perhaps even more so than you turning your head away from the scientific community on this particular topic… I am stunned that you have turned your back on the man who I know you believe was cheated out of The White House… because if Al Gore is right, the earth is going to burn up in the future and then we all are going to need a new home.

What do you think?

There are several ways you can register your views on today's debate.

Poll

An online poll will allow readers to cast their own vote, with the results published on the Opintion Page next Sunday. You must vote by noon Thursday. You can vote either on the Homepage or the Opinion page of times-news.com.

Write us

You can also share your thoughts via email. Just send us an e-mail at rkerns@times-news.com. Selected comments will be printed in next week's Opinion section.

We also welcome written letters. Send them by mail to Letters to the Editor, 19 Baltimore St., Cumberland, MD 21502 or by fax to 301-722-5270.

Next week's debate:
Israeli response in Lebanon appropriate?



Last week's results:

Should the state of Maryland allow a bear hunt in Western Maryland?

Of 803 respondents, 59 percent said no and 41 percent said yes.