I grant you it is not high on President Obama's priority list; however, if he cannot ground NASA, he will never be able to rein in the much more powerful Pentagon. NASA has a very effective propaganda machine. Whatever modest little mission it pursues, it frames as if it was of grand importance not merely to the United States but to the human race. The most recent example is the launch of a telescope which costs a 'mere' six hundred million dollars, the immodestly labeled 'Kepler' mission. For those who have not kept up with the philosophical implications of their astronomy lessons, Johannes Kepler revolutionized our view of the world by revealing that we are not the center of the universe, that we are among a bunch of other planets which are circling the Sun rather than Mother Earth.
Dr. Ed Weiler, Head of Science Missions at NASA, told NPR that Kepler "is a historical mission. I maintain it really attacks some very basic questions that have been part of our genetic code since that first man or woman looked up in the sky and asked the question: Are we alone?" One can but respond with "Come on." Questions that are part of our genetic code? And who studied the DNA of Adam and Eve?
One could say this is merely one overblown piece of PR, dished out by those who try to justify why they are spending hundred of millions of dollars on projects that will yield very little. Actually, such statements come out of NASA and are dished out by scientists who work under contract for NASA more regularly than debris flying around in outer space.
Thus another recent NASA PR move is to tell Congress and the public that it is out to find 'life' on Mars and other planets. When many people hear references to life, images of Martians spin through their heads; some even envision civilizations that we could ally ourselves with, maybe against China, at least against some other aliens in some other galaxy. Actually, what the multi-billion dollar agency is looking for is some organic material, the size of amoebas or--even less, say, signs that once there was water on Mars. It would be nice to know, I grant you; however, given other priorities, it hardly belongs at the top of the list of what ought to be studied. Indeed, even if one insists that these funds are to be used for exploration--and not, say, finding better ways to fight disease or poverty--much more promising targets are near by, right here on Earth, in the oceans.
Although oceans cover more than 70% of the Earth, less than 5% of them have been mapped with the same degree of detail as Mars. We have rarely ventured below 6,500 meters in the oceans, although they are more than 11,000 meters deep in places. We know much less about the deepest layers of the oceans than we know about the dark side of the moon.
Yet, the potential payoffs are huge. First of all, the ocean floor is the place, bar none, where the largest amounts of untapped oil and gas are to be found. Next: NASA claims that space exploration has led to all kinds of new technology--for instance, it maintains that the coatings that allow space capsules to withstand the heat of reentry are used to make better pots and pans. But deep-sea expeditions are likely to yield even greater benefits. In order to freely explore the oceans' deepest reaches, we must learn to construct submersibles that can handle extreme pressure, as much as 18,000 pounds per square inch. The resulting materials and techniques might help us design and construct homes that could withstand cyclones, hurricanes and earthquakes.
In contrast to the remote chance of discovering conditions amenable to organic life on distant planets, it is estimated that there are up to 2 million marine life forms that are yet to be discovered in the oceans. Whenever we venture deeper, we find new species; for instance, lithistids, a rare kind of sponge present only in deep waters. Such discoveries are likely to reveal secrets of earlier life on Earth, and make up for other species that are being lost due to human expansion on the surface.
Moreover, deep-water habitats teem with life that contains the promise of new drugs and new cures for diseases. In what are still largely unexplored deep-water reef communities, the Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution in Ft. Pierce, Florida, has discovered what is believed to be an anti-tumor agent (discodermolide); its value for humans is being tested in clinical trials. Also, scientists expect that organisms in the deep oceans can consume the methane that is seeping through the ocean floor and convert it into energy for themselves. They hope that we could learn to harvest such energy for our own use.
The discovery that dust on Mars is finer than previously thought or that water once may have flowed down its now barren craters doesn't bowl me over. Even the seas' more obvious secrets are much richer--for instance, sunken ships. Consider the Swedish warship Vasa, which sank in 1628. Raised in the 1960s, it now tells us volumes about earlier historical periods.
Perhaps most important, the oceans are a major part of our environment. They greatly affect the climate and the conditions that allow life--of real, two-legged creatures, our life--to survive. And yet we are turning one sea after another--the Mediterranean, for instance--into garbage dumps. Studying the health of oceans and how they may be protected is much more urgent than re-visiting Mars or watching shadows cross distant suns as Kepler aims to do.
There are some--including researchers who do not receive grants from NASA--who believe that we can draw inspiration from walking on the moon, but not from diving into the oceans. They may be too young to remember the admiration with which many millions followed the explorations of Jacques Cousteau. All we need is a good race with other nations--measured by how much ocean we cover and who can find more goodies faster--and ocean exploration will be all the rage.
Granted, Obama has more urgent priorities than worrying about either outer space or deep oceans. However, presidents have assistants, and they have assistants. Somebody, one cannot but hope, can bring some sense into setting priorities in spending those dollars dedicated to exploration. These may well be dedicated to discovering ways to fight disease and finding sustainable new sources of energy. But do not look for NASA for much help.
Amitai Etzioni is University Professor at The George Washington University and, most recently, the author of Security First: For A Muscular, Moral Foreign Policy (Yale, 2007).
www.securityfirstbook.com
NASA's budget has been shrinking ever since the Apollo program and no end-of-poverty or better-schools have materialized as a result of saving the money allegedly shot into space.
#2 ”Kepler...will yield very little!” What a narrow-minded verdict and what an uninspired insight from a scientist.
“We know much less about the deepest layers of the oceans than we know about the dark side of the moon.” This served isolationist sentiments 20 years ago, but we have proven meanwhile existence of life at maritime places, which were believed to be void.
At a time, when the whole world is searching for renewable energy sources, Mr. Etzioni wants to tap maritime oil reserves. The technology, so he maintains, can be utilised for hurricane proof buildings. It will be needed by then because the burned oil will almost certainly topple our climate.
NASA has demonstrated benefits such as the pace-maker, GPS navigation and the discovery of a ozone hole in the Martian atmosphere. The latter is a study that, by Mr. Etzioni’s admonition, should have yield little of interest but has led scientists to find our own ozone hole.
Mr. Etzioni should refrain from putting up the false dichotomy that there are means for only one explorative program.
Raiko Milanovic, Germany
Of course, when he talks about learning how to construct submersibles that can handle 18,000 PSI and using that information to 'design and construct homes that could withstand cyclones, hurricanes and earthquakes' he loses a lot of credibility. We already know how to do a lot of that, but it tends to be too expensive or too off beat for the banks to finance. In some instances, like storm surges, the cost of making buildings able to withstand the phenomena would be prohibitive. In other instances, like earthquakes, you have to worry more about the infrastructure than the housing. Furthermore, if the building codes were revised to require the highest level of construction quality needed to withstand the tornadoes, hurricanes and/or earthquakes, there would be a lot of flak from the construction industry.
Ideally, we should be promoting knowledge of both outer and inner space. Cutting back on one at the expense of the other is foolish, especially when threats from outer space are much greater than threats from inner space.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/03/24/from-distant-planets-to-the-deep-blue-sea/
Why aren't we mining the asteroid belt? Why aren't we building a space elevator? Why aren't we colonizing Mars? Wny don't we have a fleet single stage to orbit vehicles? Because there is always someone pointing out that this war or that tax cut is more important than advancing the human frontier.
I don't buy your argument for a moment. If we haven't explored the oceans or started strip mining them yet, it does not follow that we have to trash what's left of the space program to do it. SInce when can Americans only do one thing at a time?
We have just handed $170 Billion dollars to AIG and have gotten what? This amount of funding has funded the last 10 years of NASA's expansion of our common knowledge base. This new common knowledge is invaluable and has been source of tremendous economic growth.
One of this years TED conference award winners, on how to grow your own fresh air, is an example of NASA research being applied worldwide to the benefit of everyone.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tedtalks/how-to-grow-your-own-fres_b_177552.html
If anything we would be better off if we stopped bailing out financial hooligans and instead increased NASA's funding!
Regards,
AIG: 180 billion dollars.
Apollo: 25.4 billion dollars from 1965-1969.
Adjusted for inflation in 2007 dollars: $156.13 billion
Apollo gave us the computer revolution, or at the least greatly sped it up. Hint: research Apollo Guidance System and MIT's solution.
Somehow, I get the feeling that this guy (the author here) is terrified out of his wits that we might actually find life, even microbial bacterial life on Mars, and if we did, that would mean that life is sustainable on Mars, and if that's the case then in his little mind, when humans are forced to colonize Mars due to climate change and over population which WILL occur on Earth, the author's precious little (supposedly all seeing all knowing) invisible-man-in-the-sky he calls God would not be able to find humanity
The Velcro hook-loop fastener was invented in 1948 by Swiss engineer, George de Mestral, who lived in Commugny, Switzerland. It was commercialized in the middle 1950's.
While I agree completely with your point, you are incorrect in citing Velcro.
See: http://www.aero.org/publications/crosslink/fall2006/backpage.html
Many of our modern conveniences are products of NASA's efforts to overcome the challenges of working in the harsh environment of space. The list of important technologies that arose from NASA's efforts are too long to list. But I'll start: solar cells, fuel cells, energy efficient electronics, electronic/computer miniaturization, modern telecommunications, modern weather prediction.....
Many of our global economic competitors realize the value of space exploration, both inherent and offshoot, and have ramped up their space programs in recent years. It would be short-sighted and ignorant for the US to abandon our lead in the space industry as Mr. Etzioni suggests.
This is debatable. Both are essential not only to science, but also to the big issues of the day: the economy, security (defense, intelligence, disaster warning and relief, etc), energy, environment, health/medicine, etc.
For example, considering our economic problems, space isn't mainly about science or engineering, it's about business. That's why NASA should encourage cost-effective and growth-oriented space entrepreneurs more, rather than just supporting big contractors. Much of our economic infrastructure already depends on GPS, satellite telecommunications, Earth imagery, and other space applications. These mainstream space applications only scratch the surface of the potential of space, though. Most of the resources needed by economies are off Earth: energy, industrial and precious metals, the building blocks of life, atmospheres, and oceans, etc.
To reform NASA:
- Sure, focus NASA's space work more on Earth's oceans, atmosphere, land, Sun, etc. Do the same with other application areas: energy, security, health/medicine, etc. Always do this in the context of NASA's charter (space and aeronautics), though.
- Get NASA to work better with commercial space (using it and transferring technology to it).
- Remove NASA from building and operating rockets transport systems, and have it use commercial space for this.
- Have NASA put a greater emphasis on numerous smaller, lower-cost missions that can leverage economies of scale.
Unfortunately, your idea of "better, cheaper, faster" missions has been tried. They bounced off of Mars. They failed on their way to their mission objectives. In the long run, it was not cost-effective.
Former NASA manager Tony Spear labeled the results of that effort: "NASA's "current mission failure rate is too high and must be reduced."
See: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/spear_report_000313.html
Next. consider that ULA, who operates the Space Transportation System (aka the Shuttle) is a public company - or at least its parents Boeing and Lockheed are. Moreover, NASA has used contractors for most of their work dating back to the Apollo era.
NASA working with commercial space is happening, I happened to notice a Falcon 9 sitting at Cape Canaveral (adjacent to Kennedy Space Center) on my last visit. Space-X has a contract to work with NASA for providing exactly the things you call for.
The X PRIZE Foundation is widely known for its space prizes, like the suborbital rocket ones and the Google Lunar X PRIZE. In fact, Arianna Huffington is on their Board of Trustees. Yet if you look at their Exploration initiatives, you'll see a picture of the Moon reflected on the surface of the ocean. They're considering an "Ocean X PRIZE Suite" to do things like map the ocean floors and develop vehicles to help people explore the oceans. Once again, space and ocean exploration are complimentary.
If you watched the recent TED prize where ocean explorer Sylvia Earle expressed her ocean-related wish, you'd have seen Google Earth being used. In fact, she was also at the rollout of the "Google Ocean" features in Google Earth. Would there even be a Google Earth without satellite imagery? Notice that Google Mars was rolled out at the same time as Google Earth. They get it.
There is no reason we can't explore space AND the oceans. In fact, NASA already studies the oceans (and the rest of the Earth) from space. That's what satellite missions like Jason, TOPEX-Poseiden, Aqua, the SeaWIFS instrument, and others are for (if you couldn't tell from their names). NOAA also does this using satellites. This is a major part of what NASA does.
Of course NASA also explores other planets, including the Mars missions and astronomy missions like Kepler. Understanding the Earth (and aspects of the Earth like its oceans) is much easier when the Earth is put in its scientific context. That's what comparative planetology is about. Usually the examples of such comparisons that are given stress climate change, where we better understand Earth's climate by comparing its history and atmosphere with those of, say, Venus and Mars (with very different CO2-dominated atmospheres). However, the Earth's oceans can also be compared to those on other planets and Moons. For example, 3 of Jupiter's icy Moons probably have subsurface oceans, Saturn's Enceladus has geysers, and Saturn's Titan has non-water liquid oceans on the surface. We can also search for frozen water "oceans" on places like the Moon and Mars, and possibly liquid subsurface water on Mars. All of these, and their detailed physical properties and history, given insights into Earth's oceans, lakes, and water tables ... and vice versa.