Putting probes into space - why bother?
Created | Updated Jan 18, 2005
Today on the radio, I listened to a debate between Kevin Myers and Leo Enright, two well known Irish journalists, debating the usefulness of sending probes into space to visit worlds such as the recently visited moon, Titan. Myers central thesis was that it is a complete waste of time - a Philosopher's Stone - a project with no major practical or economic benefit to mankind. In short, we should stop it and divert funding to Earth research instead, as it is only Earth which will sustain us for the future.
On the face of it, his argument makes some sense. Earth is the only planet known which could reasonably sustain human life; the economic costs of mining and bringing resources from extraterrestrial worlds are prohibitive and the technology payoff from interplanetary science is relatively minor. At this time, there is no significant economic or practical benefit to be gained from sending probes to the Moon, Mars, or Saturn. If you were attempting to run a business out of this you would have been closed down long ago.
However I think that Mr. Myers is missing a big point in all this: that of the centrality of science and scientific thinking to our culture. The current missions to our planetary neighbours are not about economics, but science - the continual drive to know more about ourselves, and the universe in which we inhabit. By advocating an ending of the interplanetary programme, Mr. Myers is effectively saying that barriers should be erected. He is telling us that we should go no further on this quest for understanding. This goes against the whole philosophy of science, which seeks rational answers for phenomena where once upon a time, religion was more than eager to fill our gaps in knowledge. A society that erects barriers to our quest for understanding blinkers itself, leaving wiggle room for the mystics and dogmatists to peddle their fairy tales to the masses. In an age where unbridled religious dogma is making something of a comeback, few issues are more important.
If we feel that space science needs restraints due to its lack of economic or practical benefit, then what prevents such a limited world-view from invading other areas of science? Perhaps we should place restrictions on particle physics programs? Cut back on funding to evolutionary biologists who study worm cultures in Madagascar? End research into our human origins in Africa? By requiring an economic case for science to occur, most real science would end overnight. We would be playing into the hands of those who don't want us to know the truth about ourselves. Equally significantly, we would be diverting funding into "economic science", which is overwhelmingly the realm of the military in this day and age.
As Mr Enright stated, civil space funding is a drop in the ocean compared to military funding, but Mr Myers is not making the case that such resources be diverted into long-term Earth improvement initiatives. He prefers a softer target.
The probes that we are sending to our close neighbours may help to answer some of the most profound questions that we could possibly ask. There are huge gaps in our understanding of life. We do not know, as yet, if there are any other bodies out there that either once supported life, or do so today. We have our suspicions, however, that Earth does not have the monopoly on life, and that some other planets and moons out there harbour other life forms. If we found positive proof of life elsewhere, what a revelation that would be! It would transform our understanding of DNA - whether other forms of life can exist, and the conditions necessary for life to occur. It would tell us if life came from the skies or if it was a terrestrial accident. It would provide evidence that our whole universe is seeded with it. A discovery such as this would change our outlook, possibly in a way that was not so chauvinistic.
Another question that these probes may help to answer relates to the fragility and possibly the future of our planet. Mars was once a lush, watery world, not unlike our own. Today it is a barren desert. Our other neighbour, Venus - practically our twin in planetary terms, is a boiling greenhouse-gas hell. Was it always like this? What it was to force these transitions are important question, as perhaps we are at risk on Earth of a similar future. By understanding our neighbours we learn more about ourselves and the fragility of our world.
There are hundreds of insights available from the study of other worlds which enhance our understanding of our world: from the strength of their magnetic fields, to the causes of volcanism and mountain formation to the composition of their atmospheres. Mr. Myers may think that these questions are moot, but many others would disagree.
One final point. Just after the Christmas of 2004, the unthinkable happened in the Indian Ocean. The Tsunami: an event unprecedented in historical records of the region hit thousands of miles of shoreline killing almost 200,000 people, ruining the lives of millions. The reconstruction effort will be long-term and will cost billions. For centuries, our telescopes have been telling us that even bigger killers lurk in the background. Asteroids and comets, large rocks in space, have hit the Earth on an ongoing basis, and with unimaginable force, ever since the world began. It is only a matter of time before another one does so. Like the Tsunami, we could choose ignore it on account of its rarity and cost. Or we could go out and explore. We could find out how they are constructed, how they could be diverted or disintegrated. Most of them don't survive an impact with Earth very well, so we have no choice but to go into space. The knowledge we glean from this could enable millions of us to cheat death. It could prevent humanity from reverting to stone-age conditions instantly. How is that for economic benefit?
On the face of it, his argument makes some sense. Earth is the only planet known which could reasonably sustain human life; the economic costs of mining and bringing resources from extraterrestrial worlds are prohibitive and the technology payoff from interplanetary science is relatively minor. At this time, there is no significant economic or practical benefit to be gained from sending probes to the Moon, Mars, or Saturn. If you were attempting to run a business out of this you would have been closed down long ago.
However I think that Mr. Myers is missing a big point in all this: that of the centrality of science and scientific thinking to our culture. The current missions to our planetary neighbours are not about economics, but science - the continual drive to know more about ourselves, and the universe in which we inhabit. By advocating an ending of the interplanetary programme, Mr. Myers is effectively saying that barriers should be erected. He is telling us that we should go no further on this quest for understanding. This goes against the whole philosophy of science, which seeks rational answers for phenomena where once upon a time, religion was more than eager to fill our gaps in knowledge. A society that erects barriers to our quest for understanding blinkers itself, leaving wiggle room for the mystics and dogmatists to peddle their fairy tales to the masses. In an age where unbridled religious dogma is making something of a comeback, few issues are more important.
If we feel that space science needs restraints due to its lack of economic or practical benefit, then what prevents such a limited world-view from invading other areas of science? Perhaps we should place restrictions on particle physics programs? Cut back on funding to evolutionary biologists who study worm cultures in Madagascar? End research into our human origins in Africa? By requiring an economic case for science to occur, most real science would end overnight. We would be playing into the hands of those who don't want us to know the truth about ourselves. Equally significantly, we would be diverting funding into "economic science", which is overwhelmingly the realm of the military in this day and age.
As Mr Enright stated, civil space funding is a drop in the ocean compared to military funding, but Mr Myers is not making the case that such resources be diverted into long-term Earth improvement initiatives. He prefers a softer target.
The probes that we are sending to our close neighbours may help to answer some of the most profound questions that we could possibly ask. There are huge gaps in our understanding of life. We do not know, as yet, if there are any other bodies out there that either once supported life, or do so today. We have our suspicions, however, that Earth does not have the monopoly on life, and that some other planets and moons out there harbour other life forms. If we found positive proof of life elsewhere, what a revelation that would be! It would transform our understanding of DNA - whether other forms of life can exist, and the conditions necessary for life to occur. It would tell us if life came from the skies or if it was a terrestrial accident. It would provide evidence that our whole universe is seeded with it. A discovery such as this would change our outlook, possibly in a way that was not so chauvinistic.
Another question that these probes may help to answer relates to the fragility and possibly the future of our planet. Mars was once a lush, watery world, not unlike our own. Today it is a barren desert. Our other neighbour, Venus - practically our twin in planetary terms, is a boiling greenhouse-gas hell. Was it always like this? What it was to force these transitions are important question, as perhaps we are at risk on Earth of a similar future. By understanding our neighbours we learn more about ourselves and the fragility of our world.
There are hundreds of insights available from the study of other worlds which enhance our understanding of our world: from the strength of their magnetic fields, to the causes of volcanism and mountain formation to the composition of their atmospheres. Mr. Myers may think that these questions are moot, but many others would disagree.
One final point. Just after the Christmas of 2004, the unthinkable happened in the Indian Ocean. The Tsunami: an event unprecedented in historical records of the region hit thousands of miles of shoreline killing almost 200,000 people, ruining the lives of millions. The reconstruction effort will be long-term and will cost billions. For centuries, our telescopes have been telling us that even bigger killers lurk in the background. Asteroids and comets, large rocks in space, have hit the Earth on an ongoing basis, and with unimaginable force, ever since the world began. It is only a matter of time before another one does so. Like the Tsunami, we could choose ignore it on account of its rarity and cost. Or we could go out and explore. We could find out how they are constructed, how they could be diverted or disintegrated. Most of them don't survive an impact with Earth very well, so we have no choice but to go into space. The knowledge we glean from this could enable millions of us to cheat death. It could prevent humanity from reverting to stone-age conditions instantly. How is that for economic benefit?
