space: leave it to the machines

February 16, 2003
Space: Let's leave it to the machines
By PETER WORTHINGTON -- Toronto Sun
Until the Columbia disaster that killed seven astronauts, relatively
few people questioned the worth of space "exploration." President
George Bush set the tone by vowing: "The cause for which they died
will continue ... Our journey into space will go on." And so it
will ... except that man has ceased going into space. We have not
ventured beyond the International Space Station (ISS) since the last
Apollo mission in 1972 when Eugene Cernan was the last human to walk
on the moon.

Since then, the farthest anyone has ventured into space is the ISS -
roughly the distance from Earth that Baltimore is from New York, as
pointed out by Robert Park, professor of physics and the University
of Maryland and director of information at the American Physical
Society.

That's hardly space "exploration," though it is undeniably
space "travel" - not quite the same thing.

In fact, until Columbia disintegrated over Texas, this was to have
been the last scientific mission for a shuttle. The remaining craft,
Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour were to be a trucking or bus
service ferrying supplies and people to and from the ISS.

Prof. Park is one of a growing number who question the scientific
value of what man has been doing in space over the past 30 years. Did
the research conducted by Columbia's crew justify the risks? Are
humans needed to carry out the various experiments? The answer
is "No." This isn't to imply that space is too risky. But the goal
has to be more than just going into space because it is there - a
justification given for climbing mountains. Yet that's precisely the
justification cited by Florida Sen. Bill Nelson who went on Columbia
in 1986.

Sen. Nelson is right that the space program is essential for defence,
for communications, for weather research, etc. Benefits have been
enormous - cordless tools, various home insulations, water filters,
microchips, computers, spy satellites, the Hubble telescope, et al.
None of which needed humans in space.

Though Americans lust to explore the unknown - virtually a human
need - this isn't what the space program is about these days. As
Prof. Park points out, "The list of experiments conducted by Columbia
is shocking, It reads like a junior-high science fair." Experiments
included whether roses blooming in space have a different odour than
roses grown on Earth and whether spiders can weave their webs without
gravity.

>From the start, every experiment in the shuttle lab could have been
done robotically at much lower cost, except discerning the effects of
weightlessness on the human body and psyche.

Those who want to keep the space program largely as it now is, use
the word "exploration" a lot. The trouble is, there is nowhere to go
in space, except the moon and Mars. Man can't go to other planets,
which are too hot, or where the gravitational pull is too crushing
for human existence.

Mars is 150 million miles away. Rather than putting a man on Mars,
the tiny robot Sojourner that the Pathfinder spacecraft took to Mars
in 1997, has contributed more information of greater value - and far
more cheaply - than the shuttle missions.

The Sojourner was a telerobot, whose brain was a human brain on
Earth, guiding and controlling it to poke around Mars with gadgetry
that analyzed what rocks were made of, tested the temperature and
photographed the environment.

As Park says, it rambled around "never complaining of the cold nights
or breaking for lunch." When its mission was done it didn't have to
be brought home to Earth.

It other words, the guy giving the robot orders was the
true "explorer," not astronauts in the shuttle or the ISS.
Significantly, the Pathfinder mission to Mars cost a quarter of what
one shuttle flight costs.

Probably, the Hubble Space Telescope is the most useful at unlocking
secrets of the universe. It too is operated from Earth, though
repaired and adjusted by astronauts. But the ISS is incapable of
launching craft deeper into space - even if there was somewhere to
go.

It used to be thought that once man landed on the moon, the next step
would be to colonize it, or use it to get to Mars.

In 1969, when the world watched Neil Armstrong make his "one small
step for man, one giant leap for mankind," we felt this was just the
beginning of space exploration. Instead, it turned out to be the end
of it. The era of exploring the solar system by humans lasted three
years, to be replaced by the shuttle tour bus.

Space program talking heads that fill TV screens these days - shuttle
program director Ron Dittemore and NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe -
are deeply committed to a space program that needs to change, adapt,
be upgraded. It's not just more money that's required, but direction
and purpose. But there's still no place to go - except Mars and the
moons of Jupiter and Saturn.

Peter Worthington is the founding editor of the Toronto Sun.