Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Why Progressives Should Care About Human Destiny in Space

By Tad Daley, AlterNet. Posted August 11, 2007.


Barbara Morgan's journey into the cosmos sheds light on the importance of the space program.
Advertisement

Everybody knows that whether it's lavish Broadway spectacle or humble community theater, the lead actors have understudies. If Hamlet, Sky Masterson or Galinda the Good Witch come down with laryngitis a couple of hours before curtain, some brave soul needs to be ready, at a moment's notice, to step into the breach.

But perhaps not everybody knows that astronauts, too, have "understudies." If Mission Specialist No. 4 comes down with laryngitis a couple of days before launch, NASA doesn't want to scrub a flight after years of training by the crew and all the preparation that goes into every mission by thousands more on the ground.

The crew of the Challenger, which perished on Jan. 28, 1986, when the space shuttle disintegrated over the Atlantic Ocean 73 seconds after liftoff, had backups. Christa McAuliffe, who was selected to be the first "schoolteacher in space," was herself backed up by another schoolteacher. Her name was Barbara Radding Morgan, who taught elementary school in Fresno, Calif., and was then 34 years old.

On Wednesday evening, more than 21 years later, Ms. Morgan, now 55, went up on the space shuttle Endeavor as NASA's first "educator in space" to continue the mission that Ms. McAuliffe began two long decades ago. And she's doing it from the same place where McAuliffe sat -- in the middle of the lower deck.

Morgan and the rest of the Endeavor's seven-member crew will be spending about two weeks at the international space station to continue a construction project that will include replacing a gyroscope, attaching a new truss segment to the station and delivering 5,000 pounds of cargo.

Many of the educators who had competed with Morgan and McAuliffe to become the first teacher in orbit, were in Florida to watch the liftoff. Even June Scobee Rodgers, the widow of the Challenger's commander, was present for the launch.

"The Challenger crew -- my husband Dick Scobee, the teacher Christa McAuliffe -- they would be so happy with Barbara Morgan. They'd be excited for her, they'd be proud of her and her following through with the mission for the teacher to fly in space,'' said Scobee Rodgers, founding chairman of the Challenger Center for Space Science Education.

But why go to all the trouble to launch a now 55-year-old woman into the cosmos? What is the meaning of Barbara Morgan? As we approach our 50th anniversary as a spacefaring civilization (Sputnik was launched into orbit by the late USSR on Oct. 4, 1957), what is the space program for?

And why should progressives, with a full menu of more immediate causes on our activist plates, care about this one?

I heard one answer last month, in Kansas City, at the commemoration of the centennial, on 7/7/7, of the birth of perhaps the greatest apostle of human destiny in space that humanity has yet produced -- Robert A. Heinlein. His majestic Time Enough for Love told the life story of Lazarus Long, one of the most charismatic characters in 20th century literature. Setting the scene in the year 4272, Heinlein wrote, "We are no longer able to make a reasoned guess at the numbers of the Human Race, nor do we have even an approximate count of the colonized planets. The most we can say is that there must be in excess of two thousand colonized planets, in excess of five hundred billion people. The colonized planets may be twice that number, the Human Race could be four times that numerous. ... Pioneers care little about sending records to the home office; they are busy staying alive ..."

4272. That's not so far off. It's just a little bit longer in the one direction than Caesar and Christ are in the other. But that's what the voyages of Christa McAuliffe and Barbara Morgan are really about. All of us now alive, on behalf of all those not yet alive, have only just barely embarked on that endless expedition. That is the journey, for the Human Race, toward immortality.

What does immortality have to do with progressive values? Conservatives, most fundamentally, are about the idea that individuals ought to devote their blood, tears, toil and sweat to pursuing their own individual interests ... and leave it to other individuals to do the same. But if political progressives are about anything, we are about the idea that our lives are about something larger than ourselves. The idea that, as Michael Moore says in Sicko, we are not a "me society" but a "we society." The idea that we have obligations and responsibilities not just to ourselves and our immediate families, but also to the community of the whole.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: space, barbara morgan, christa mcauliffe, endeavor, challenger, schoolteacher

Tad Daley is a veteran progressive political adviser and nuclear disarmament policy analyst. He has served as a policy aide for the late U.S. Sen. Alan Cranston, as national issues director for Rep. Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign and as a co-founder of Progressive Democrats of America, pdamerica.org.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
nice sentiments...
Posted by: rue on Aug 11, 2007 2:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but in the end, we have more important things to be spending our time and money on.

although it may be true that those who have had the chance to see the earth from afar in person see the earth as a whole, it takes no stretch of the imagination to realize that as soon as people figure out how to exploit space exploration for the sake of a greasy buck, idealism will take a back seat as it always does.

how many kids could be fed with the money the US government spends on these trips to space? how many folks could have their health care taken care of?

this is not an anti-science rant - i believe science and exploration are important for the betterment of people in general. but let's have our priorities straight - from the moon, you can't see all the people starving.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» disagree - great article! Posted by: defrag
Human Space Flight Inefficient
Posted by: douglashoyt on Aug 11, 2007 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Fine let us wait until 4272 until we start sending humankind into space. Robots can do everything we need to do in space at a fraction of the cost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What's it all about?
Posted by: Neilium on Aug 11, 2007 4:19 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I want to say this, " who would be so stupid to think that the usa is not doing all this to dominate the world from space if possible, and to gain any foothold on any exploitable material to further their greedy warring habits on the globe." Just have a good look at the last seventy years of usa dirty habits round the world and get real.. the other thing that made be laugh myself off the chair.. " something from Stephen Hawking" ha ha talk about the emperors new clothes... that crazy nitwit once said on a sort of tv science docufantasia with Carl Sagan and who ever.. that " he believed that the universe was created by an intelligence" ha ha .. man o man and you quote him?
Mate, the world is terrified of the usa for good reason, the kowtowers pretend to like Bush and his gang because fear is their only other option. the shuttle is wholly and soley us property to do their bidding and nothing else. Any one who really thinks we can do better on another planet .. ' id lock up anyone who thinks that it's even a possibility let alone desirable' is just a blind fool who has forgotten their responsibility to the ground under their feet. What we need to do is to ' Just Stop Doing!' and give this place a break.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What's it all about? Posted by: Lincoln fan
It's such a cliche...
Posted by: defrag on Aug 11, 2007 4:44 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Progressives bitching about the money spent on the space program...

It's like conservatives bitching about the money spent on Amtrak. In both cases, the money is a drop in the bucket of the budget. In both cases, the programs prevent a lot of worse problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Word Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: It's such a cliche... Posted by: moenbailey
» I agree about Amtrak... Posted by: defrag
real adult responsibility
Posted by: mwildfire on Aug 11, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article has many good points, but its conclusion is illogical. The quotation about the fact that we now have so many serious threats to our survival that we have only even odds of surviving as a species for the rest of the century--threats mainly of our own making--is taken as a reason for progressives to add spacefaring to the enormous list of causes we fight for.
Why? Because we can't take one more step, beyond seeing the planet as a whole and humanity as a whole, to seeing life as a whole? because we substitute anthropocentrism for nationalism and thus we assume that the survival of humanity is a good thing no matter what?
If you have read the statements of the US Space Command, you will see that the comments above this one are not paranoid or "anti-American." The evidence is strong that the Star Wars "missile defense" effort now going forward is in fact intended to give those who control the US government first-strike capability. I suspect they are also working on a system to allow a man in a bunker in some undisclosed location to locate anyone percieved as an enemy, and then fry that person with a satellite-mounted laser, anonymously. Once the technology is in place--and I see no reason it isn't technologically possible--this cabal will have in their hands the means to that old dream, the dream of absolute power. Once a few activists in each region disappear in a puddle of grease... and then the first ones to protest or question this happening also disappear in a puddle of grease... there will be no further opposition.
In the face of this reality, it's irresponsible to say that humanity must surge into space, so that we can survive and spread even if we soon destroy our homeworld. The situation is a replica of the tale of recent human history: when two cultures collide and one is much wiser than the other, the one with wisdom and perspective is almost invariably wiped out by the other one, the "masculine" one, the one that has not been able to see beyond the root myth of civilization: the myth that it is possible for one to prosper at the expense of another. (In the short run and with a small perspective it IS possible, which is why the myth endures. But in the long run, robbing the world you live in means you live in an impoverished world). The last peaceable indigenous peoples are being destroyed by industrial greed and insatiable capitalism even as we discuss whether the human race must save itself from the destruction we visit on our own Mother, the planet that gave us birth.
So the answer is NO. We must NOT venture into space unless and until we pass the test; unless we find at last a way to change the reality that the ruthless rule. If we can survive this century without nuclear warfare, germ warfare, global climate change and/or other environmental catastrophes destroying us, if we can fend off global totalitarianism-- if we can somehow find a way to control and heal the worst among us rather than handing them the throne--then and only then, should we consider space an option. We are still in kindergarten and should not be grabbing the keys to the car.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The moon landings, eh?
Posted by: Robert_Hoogenboom@leftfoot.com.au on Aug 11, 2007 5:19 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On July 20, 1979, on the tenth anniversary of humanity's first footsteps on the moon, Neil Armstrong was asked how he had felt as he saluted the flag up there. "I suppose you're thinking about pride and patriotism," he replied. "But we didn't have a strong nationalistic feeling at that time. We felt more that it was a venture of all mankind." (One wonders if any consideration was given, in the high councils of the Johnson and Nixon administrations, to having Armstrong and Aldrin plant not a flag of the United States on the moon, but a flag of Planet Earth.)
Many of the fortunate souls who have made it into Earth orbit (and the infinitesimal 27 who have left Earth orbit and ventured to the moon) have expressed remarkably similar sentiments.


You Americans never set foot on the moon. You couldn't do it then and you can't do it now. Nobody can. The French can't, the Russians couldn't and the Chinese can't. If you could, you'd be there now, looking for oil. You can't even do it today, let alone then, with technology the way it was. How did you do all the process control, with slide rules? And where did the data come from, guys reading dials and scribbling like fury? You see, microprocessors hadn’t been invented yet. Computers were mainframes, that took up an entire floor, with a fraction the power of any cheap desktop or laptop today, and those spacecraft had no computers on board! And computers are absolutely necessary to process the communication from the Earth and process the data to land the module safely on the moon and get it back into orbit behind the Saturn mothership to dock it. Docking didn’t begin until the latter seventies. Oh, there was something up there, all right, but it was nowhere near t he moon, nowhere near the van Allen belt and the radiation in space that would have burnt them to a crisp. A conspiracy all right! And the astronauts themselves simply don’t act like heroes, people who have pulled off the most spectacular thing mankind has ever done. They look away from the camera, or look at it too brazenly, and they avoid the tough questions. No doubt they’re thinking about all the money they got and about the safety of their grandchildren, and maybe even some old patriotic thoughts. Aldrin has been known to walk out of some moon landing celebratory meeting sobbing. They’re getting old, so the conspiracy may fall apart soon. It fact, it already has. Find that one-liner in Bill Clinton’s autobiography, would you, where he tells you that you never made it to the moon. And come back alive, that is. When the Chinese finally do, no doubt they will find a few rockets in smithereens with the remains of dead Americans and dead Russians.
Oh, and please spare me all the foam-at-the-mouth stuff, coming from hurt egos rather than from practical thinking, where you proffer some foo-foo thing or some scientific naiveté or physical impossibility and say that it shows that the “conspiracy theorists” are wrong. The Europeans have been asking for proof of those moon landings for years – how you solved the radiation problem, for example (didn’t someone recently come up with a material they thought would be suitable, finally, for radiation-proof space suits?) NASA’s response has been invariably not to respond. Don’t you Americans want to know the truth about this? Doesn’t it bother you that your ideas about yourselves and your posturings are becoming the laughing stock of the world? If the consequences weren’t so grim, that is. (My wife is American. She told me about that one-liner in Clinton's book.)

Robert_Hoogenboom (@ )leftfoot.com.au
Sydney, Australia

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Colony at Botany Bay, eh? Posted by: sausage
» Botany Bay....? Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Botany Bay....? Posted by: Ghoulman
» Why would we go back? Posted by: OhioPatriot
» RE: The moon landings, eh? Posted by: Neilium
» RE: The moon landings, eh? Posted by: EncinoM
THEY LANDED AT THE WTC!!
Posted by: kwalla on Aug 11, 2007 8:17 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The REAL truth is that they landed at the WTC and planted explosives that went off on 9.11.01. See it all on my website!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The moon landings, eh? Posted by: WitchyNy
Fiction is fun, but progressives should stick with reality.
Posted by: KeepsonTickn on Aug 11, 2007 7:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love Sci-Fi. But fiction should be entertainment, not a way of life. No matter how enamored we are of our fiction, reality has a pernicious way of intruding itself. The reality is, we are methodically stripping the world of resources and radically reducing its capacity to sustain life with our pollution and wholesale destruction of diversity.

The system is out of balance, and anything that contributes to the condition is a problem. Space travel in its present form has tremendous costs in environmental damage and resource depletion, while it is entirely elective. This makes it expendable.

We should not send another manned vehicle into space until we have obtained a sustainable, balanced system here on earth. In the best case that would put off consideration of the next launch for generations. Then we should make the kind of trade-offs that every family faces at the kitchen table. If we are going to send rockets into space, what will we give up to do it? In the meantime, I will keep reading science fiction, and try to avoid confusing it with reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So who decides? Posted by: sculptor
» Spot-On Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: A great analogy Posted by: EncinoM
» But of course! Posted by: pdxstudent
» RE: But of course! Posted by: KeepsonTickn
» RE: But of course! Posted by: pdxstudent
» Your heading is an oxymoron Posted by: OhioPatriot
The alternative to the Daley vision is bleak
Posted by: Earthian on Aug 11, 2007 8:26 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The arguments here rejecting Daley's vision are all thoughtful and pragmatic. But I disagree with abandoning the space program. The reason I like Daley's vision so much, is not only for the ideals of enabling humanity to live "beyone the cradle of its birth" while attending to more immediate concerns, but also because if the US and the other nations were to completely abandon current efforts at local human space travel and more distance robotic probing the following scenario would develop: once we abandon these activities, those with the knowledge we now possess would retire and then die. We would not have any group of professionals who would still possess the knowledge to go to space. And starting up again would be quite difficult, once that knowledge is no longer in the minds of living people. I think it is best for progressives to advocate for maintaining the capability for humans to go to local destinations no further than Earth orbit and the moon, and for our robots to continue to explore the solar system, while ever-better telescopes probe other systems (and this one). This would preclude expensive and (to me) fruitless trips to Mars by people, which can be done much more effectively and more inexpensively by robots, as we are now doing. By maintaining such a space-exploration capability, humanity can gradually plan to go beyond the immediate Moon-Earth neighborhood while we solve the global megacrisis we now face here on the surface. I find Daley's vision sensible and compelling, as long as human trips out of the Moon-Earth neighborhood are held off until we make a sustainable, prosperous, law-abiding, diversity-safe, fair civilization here on the surface.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Entropy
Posted by: lpugliese on Aug 11, 2007 9:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For most of the replies here- please see the title "Why PROGRESSIVES Should Care..."

Arguing that we should fix our doomed environment before evolving to a better space is tantamount to arguing that our ancestors should have fixed the conditions in England, Europe or elsewhere before deciding to emmigrate to the New World - or that ancient sea life should have remained in the sea, rather than crawl up onto the land.

And possibly the MOST important point to anyone who does care about the future of our species- Life is NOT infinite here. The sun WILL burn out-.And make no mistake about it, we do not know when.

Thanks, Tad- brilliant!

LP

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Entropy Posted by: KeepsonTickn
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
Sorry, this comment has been removed from the system.
» RE: ntropy Posted by: cpotter
» YOU WROTE THE ANSWER! Posted by: Neilium
???
Posted by: bar5608 on Aug 11, 2007 9:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Question. To all you scientists out there. Since we are on the subject of space exploration, and exploitation, and also on the brink of running out of energy, what's wrong with hoisting a large refelector into orbit around Earth, and beaming some of the energy from the sun that misses the Earth, down to the Earth surface where it could be converted into power, or whatever. It looks to me like a free, inexhaustible source of energy. Add your comments on this site so all can see.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ??? Posted by: cpotter
» RE: Reflector in space and other comments Posted by: QuestionAuthority
» RE: ??? Posted by: MartianBachelor
AuntSally
Posted by: AuntSally on Aug 11, 2007 9:58 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I like the post. I like the build up to the main point. But the main point is wrong.

Nothing in science right now suggests we will ever have the capability to colonize other star systems. Perhaps this will change, but NOTHING about our understanding of physics suggests that it will. That leaves our own solar system and, we know for sure, colonizing any other body in this solar system, from the stand point of providing a haven for humans, is ludicrous. Earth is the place where humans are best suited to live. So I have an idea - let's live here!

Dedicating resources to space exploration makes sense for it's inspirational value. Doing so for survival makes no sense and, in my view, is counterproductive. We are more likely to work out our problems if we don't have a ridiculous perception in our heads that hey, if we trash this planet, we can always scam another one. No. This planet is IT. No other choices. Talk of creating havens on other planets is not consistent with science and counterproductive to caring for the one home we've got.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Earthman
Posted by: fungus on Aug 11, 2007 10:11 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Astronomy is fascinating. The structure of the universe is unbelievably interesting. There is a real need for humans to know about the solar system, the galaxy, the universe. This is our home and our origin point,and we will only know ourselves when we struggle to understand it. I am totally for
the Hubble Space Telescope and other research on the universe.
BUT- we are ignorant about the planet around it. People are less and less in contact with species and ecosystems aaround them, with the problems that life is facing and that the impacts ecological crises will have on human life. If we really want to promote peace and equality, we must focus on changing our way of life so we can move more towards a balance with the Earth. Ecological destruction impacts more on poor people than on affluent people, and there are lots of reasons to believe that it will contribute to future wars. And we need to work to protect endangered and threatened species - it is simply the right thing to do.
Space travel is a nice fantasy. I am something of a Star Trekker and all, but I really believe that we need to focus on knowing and protecting the earth at this point. If we can come to enough of a sense of humility and justice to work out our relationship with this planet and its species, including other humans, maybe we'll be ready for space travel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ronald Reagan murdered the future
Posted by: sausage on Aug 11, 2007 10:25 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Think on this, kiddies. Ronald Reagan murdered the future. He murdered the future just as he murdered Christa McAuliffe.

Ronald Reagan wasn't the brightest bulb in the pack, but he was smart enough to not take the fall for the Challenger disaster. Reagan wanted McAuliffe up in space in time for his January 28, 1986 State of the Union speech. So in spite of clear warnings from both Morton Thiokol and NASA engineers, that the O-rings in the Morton Thiokol solid-fuel booster rocket could fail in the cool, early winter morning Florida temperatures, 31 degess F at launch time. Pressure came all the way down from the White House to Morton Thiokol management for an on-schedule launch. Then the compliant Rogers Commission shuffled the blame off on NASA.

Reagan was then able to shift fudning away from manned space exploration to his bogus, money guzzling "Star Wars" initiative.

We're still shoveling money into Star Wars while manned space flight is almost dead. Look at Dubya's proposal for a manned Mars mission. Instead of the intelligent von Braunian vision of, manned space shuttle to permanent orbiting space station; space station as launch pad to found lunar colonies; lunar colonies have manufacturing facilities for construction of deep space vehicles to explore Mars and beyond. Dubya's proposal is back to giant booster rockets and capsules. That's like inventing the wheel all over again.

If we want to save humanity we have to get off the planet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The destiny of all life is to be extinguished
Posted by: FDPN on Aug 11, 2007 10:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"the journey, for the Human Race, toward immortality."

No such thing in this universe. If you've read all this other stuff then you've probably read the Asimov short story "The Last Question." Last Question
Wherein the question of, "is there a way to prevent the heat death of the universe?" is explored.

Further, there will be no human beings should we become sufficiently advanced technologically. Our bodies are slow, fragile, and worst of all - mortal. We'll be autonomous computer AI's simulating some of what it used to mean to be human. As for the Earth? Disassembled into solar energy collecting computational matter (ala a Dyson's sphere).

Dyson Sphere

Biology is a spring board into the next stage in evolution and nothing more. The matter locked up in plants, trees, and water can be put to better uses when humanity is no longer tied to its biology.

Finally (and most importantly) who are we to be so arrogant to assume that humanity is something worth preserving? Look at us! We're nothing but violent apes fighting over shiny pieces of metal and glittering rocks! Nothing humanity has shown me convinces me that I should be concerned about its ultimate survival and proliferation throughout space.

That's why I do not care about environmentalism or space exploration, the sooner humanity goes extinct the better. All space will give us is more governments (read: the wealthy elite, all governments represent the elite) arbitrarily declaring dominion over the moon, planets, and asteroids. Then we'll have even more ridiculous things to send our young men and women off to die over (guess what?! you just got drafted into the U.S. Space Force, time to go fight the Russian led E.U. - never mind those rumors of dying a horrible, horrible death when your ship depressurizes...are you a patriot or not?! SIR YES SIR!).

Anyway, the funny thing is that most Sci-Fi oriented people genuinely believe they are a special development in human history.

Guess what? People have been dreaming of immortality and god like status for thousands of years and they even came up with some nice fairy tales to that effect dating all the way back to Egypt. Such arrogant monkeys driven by their biology to seek that which they can never have.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You're a fraud Posted by: sausage
Just imagine...
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 11, 2007 10:56 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...what some future explorers would find if we continue as we are today. No life. Evidence of a complex civilization from the mechanical satellites whirling around it. They might be as startled as Earth voyagers were on the discovery of Easter Island. No life. Evidence of a complex civilization from the monuments surrounding it.

In truth, we must cope with information denied to earlier generations. We know the date when life must end on this planet. 1) Our short-term threats are a billion times greater. 2) Anyone who imagines that a well-nourished Earth-borne civilization a billion years from now would not know more than we know is stupid. 3) The only ones who want to rush into space are those who make their living at it; we can be vicitimized by our experts.

Our experts get a helping hand from everyone who believes the Earth is disposable. Space exploration and cherishing life on Earth are not necessarily incompatible. But given the choice between fantasy and work, sloth usually wins. Science is a tool not a toy or an idol. We must put away our toys and idols and get to work.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The cons are FUCKING our only livable planet to DEATH. So much for their "pro-life" BULLSHIT !
Posted by: maxpayne on Aug 11, 2007 11:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Creating "life" in outer space is a big joke at best. We'd do better to take care of our problems locally on Planet Earth first and foremost.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

strange bedfellows
Posted by: punabear on Aug 11, 2007 11:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as wars have inadvertently brought us many useful medical discoveries, the space program has already delivered our greatest alternative energy technology. Photovoltaic solar panels, arguably the most promising alternative energy technology ever, are a direct spinoff of the space program. Money for space isn't necessarily down the drain.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

False Dichotomy
Posted by: pdxstudent on Aug 11, 2007 11:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Focus on making life better on Earth first. "

I'm just lifting this from a particular post because it embodies a sentiment repeated in the comments. This reactionary knee-jerk is utterly beside the point. It's not unexpected, since what it pre-supposes is that this extremely under-funded agency is a positive road-block to a better world here on Earth. That's pure batshit horse-cobble. Were it true that the relatively minor nixing of the space program would have a positive net effect on issues of poverty and the environment, then it would have been done decades ago.

The reason that the powers that be allow the space program to persist (mind you, in shambles) is because the people are then alienated enough from it that it can always be looked at with confused contempt---all the promise, all the lies. This is easily given a "progressive" spin by hedging it as an issue of poverty- or environmental-politics. All the while, capitalist production diverts human productivity away from these very issues---hundreds of billions of American Dollars worth every year, I'm sure. When the activists come scratching at the legs of the economic powers, they have a host of distractions to which they point as "the real problem," such as the pointless endevours of those silly people at Cape Canaveral.

This "either you fuck the earth by sending people into space or you save it by staying" business is the kind of stuff 18 and 19 year olds pick apart in 100-level philosophy classes on critical thinking.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: False Dichotomy Posted by: DaBear
» Agreed. Posted by: Coleman
We don't deserve the planet we already have.
Posted by: Janet4784 on Aug 11, 2007 11:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The human race has proven itself unworthy of Earth. We certainly have no right to screw up other planets. We will disappear someday, as do all life forms, but while we are still here, let's keep standing up for the good that remains.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Space... a progrssive dream
Posted by: Ghoulman on Aug 11, 2007 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.. it always has been, sorta like personal jet packs. And being a child of the dream of space travel, Star Trek, and all that, I'm still pissed I didn't get the flying car I was promised.

It's the fantasy of technical progress. One where science solves all of our problems and we go out into the stars like the gods our tech has made us. That's wildly arrogant... I can't agree with this article. Colonizing far planets and moons might be practical for our species a few thousand years from now, but currently we really need to stop destroying the world we are on. The race to the Moon was more about creating intercontinental missiles than getting to the moon. More about war than the fantasy of technical progress. Just as Heinlein was a cheerleader for an adventurous future (and dubious future societies) so were we all back then. We really believed in "progress".

But it's not so. We live in a society far removed from such noble will. Outer Space is filled with military junk where Space Command in the US is quickly gaining oversite, and NASA will soon become a mere contractor.

There is a different imperative we need, I believe - to survive as a species we need to have real science protecting us from the wilds of interstellar life. Right now we have, I believe, all of two scientists looking our for rocks called "planet killers". I'll let you figure out if two scientists is enough for that job. We are only barely getting even data regarding the cycles of the Sun. Galactic mysteries abound (we really hope that gamma blast did hurt, even if it did seem to have the combined energy read of the entire Galaxy. Yikes)... but colonizing? Let's just try to survive first.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grossly oversimplistic objections to a rational and functional piece
Posted by: DaBear on Aug 11, 2007 1:23 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The negative comments so far all are born of cynicism, and progressives are masters of cynical thought. That cynicism is born of our lived realities as dreamers or pragmatics who are often shanghaid and frustrated by others who are charlatans and fools pretending to be pragmatics and dreamers while wreaking havoc on human potential. SO fine, we get that.

"False Dichotomy" says it best when the commentor points out the absurd logic of trying to claim something which is ultimately interconnected can be solved by only focusing on one part to the exclusion of the whole. That's brilliant progressive educated thought. That sort of brilliance ought to temper the cynicism, but in the objectors to progressives caring about space programs, their shunting their brilliance in favor of their cynicism and that's why WE ARE LOSING TO THE NEOCONS, people! Hello!

Progressives very much need to be concerned about humanity's, and frankly the U.S.A.'s, endeavors into space (including low earth orbit, which today passes for "spaceflight"). We should be incharge of promoting and funding it. What better more practical way to destroy the military industrial complex than to reallocate her funding to peaceful space-endeavors? Don't think for one minute that the challenge of keeping the soldier cultists out of the space program and such a reallocation of funds won't be a full time job for progressives. Using "well we suck at stopping them from invading other countries here on earth" as an excuse for not caring about space programs is assinine. Because we suck at stopping fascists on our home turf means we have to get better at stopping fascists period! Is space expensive, hard, tech-heavy, unsustainable? Maybe. Sure. No, it's not. Just because something is hard or challenging, or expensive for that matter, means that it is something progressives shouldn't deal with. By that logic we should drop caring about our military in Iraq because we've got neocon neo-nazis running amok in Kansas. It's cheaper and more poragmatic to fight the Klan in PA than it is to bother with Iraq. Does that make Iraq off limits for progressives? Like hell!

Those that illogically moan, 'we can't take care of earth, so we shouldn't be in space' are confusing their otherwise healthy cynicism with the reality of the situation. Yes we are in a war against soldier-cultists, fascists and a media hologram, a fight that is literally to the death. But you cannot wage a campaign to save your life with just one intervention or by simply resolving one issue at a time. We'll bleed out on the table (and we ARE) under that sort of stoopid.

Progressives have to be grown ups and hold ALL the lighting bolts in both hands. Stop being cowards and grow up... tech is real, space it there, fascism is in DC and every state house in the union. It's either a progressive led spacefaring species together as a whole of humanity or a militaristic soldier-cult empire run by giant corporations. Do you really think the latter will happen if progressives are fully involved? It certainly will if progressives aren't. Tad is right, and if you disagree, you need a serious slap upside the head to get a clue. Wake up and stop wailing the earth might not be round afterall... it is, so deal with it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bfearn
Posted by: fearn on Aug 11, 2007 2:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have the solution for all the Americans who support the 'space' program. Seeing as $1 billion is equal to a stack of $100 bills 650 miles high why not take the $2 trillion that will be pissed away in Iraq and make a ladder into space? This would eliminate hundreds of thousands of miserable killings and if the ladder did fall it would distribute billions to the third world for free.
Makes much more sense than the current program!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Benefits of the space program... Part 1
Posted by: defrag on Aug 11, 2007 2:19 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From ethicalatheist.com:
1. The most accurate topographical map of the Earth.  This data is used to develop safer navigation techniques and better communication systems.
2. Ultraviolet protection suits for people with rare intolerance to UV light, known xeroderma pigmentosum.
3. Heart pump based on technology of space shuttle's fuel pumps.  It's two inches long, one inch in diameter, and weighs less than four ounces.
4. Efficient autos and planes benefiting from NASA wind tunnel and aerodynamic expertise.
5. New metal alloys based on research for the space station program.
6. Thermal protection blankets used in everything from fire fighters suits to survival gear for cold environments.
7. Robots and robotic software with wide-ranging uses that include auto-assembly plants, hazardous material handling, monitoring in dangerous environments, distribution and packaging facilities, etc.
8. Lightweight composite materials that benefit cars, airplanes, camping gear, etc.
9. Perfect protein crystals grown in zero gravity; used for more pure pharmaceutical drugs, foods and an assortment of other crystalline-based products including insulin for diabetes patients.
10. Better understanding of the Earth and its environmental response to natural and human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as monitoring quality of our oceans and fresh water.
11. Commercial space communication systems for personal phones, computers, video transmissions, global positioning satellite systems, etc.
12. Improvements in energy use efficiency.
13. More responsible use of air and water in private and commercial buildings.
14. Automated maintenance functions for buildings and new lower-cost building construction techniques.
15. Smoke detectors for homes and commercial buildings.
16. Air purification systems used to by hospitals to provide pure oxygen for patients.
17. High-bandwidth and optical communications systems.
18. Technology for cordless tools such as drills, shrub trimmers and rechargeable flashlights.
19. Growth of zeolite crystals that have the potential to reduce the cost of petroleum and to store new types of fuels like hydrogen, which is abundant and pollution-free.  This technology could be used in hydrogen-powered cars.
20. Fire-fighting systems that battle blazes with a fine mist, rather than environmentally harmful chemicals.
21. Sunglasses that block certain types of light - blue, violet, and ultraviolet - that could hurt the eyes. These sunglasses block the hazardous light, while allowing light that is good for vision to pass through the lens.
22. Solar power collection.
23. Air filtration systems that can kill all types of harmful bacteria - even anthrax -- and remove allergens from the air with better than 90 percent efficiency.
24. Ultralight solar concentrators that gather power from the Sun and efficiently convert it into electrical power.  Applications for this technology on Earth are limitless.
25. Water purification methods using ions (an atom or group of atoms carrying a positive or negative electrical charge).  Used in water filtering systems to remove lead, chlorine, bad taste and odor.  Newer purification systems also remove contaminants such as perchlorate and nitrate.
26. "Power Pads" to cushion a horse's hooves, protecting against injuries and helping ease discomfort associated with brittle hooves or arthritis.
27. Disposable diapers. [Note: I agree, this one is not generally considered a benefit by progressives.]
28. Devices for collection and real-time analysis of blood, and other bodily fluids, without the need for centrifugation.  Huge potential for hospitals and for remote units to monitor individuals with health problems.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Benefits of the space program... Part 2
Posted by: defrag on Aug 11, 2007 2:20 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
29. Lighter artificial limbs that are virtually indestructible; based on foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's external fuel tank.
30. Computer-aided tomography (CATScan) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for imaging the body and its organs.
31. Light-emitting diodes used in photodynamic therapy.  These diodes are used in a form of chemotherapy that kills cancerous tumors.
32. Infrared sensors used in hand-held optical sensor thermometers.  These devices can measure temperature in the ear canal in two seconds or less.
33. Devices used to diagnose and treat patients suffering head injury, stroke, chronic dizziness and disorders of the central nervous system.
34. Compact laboratory instruments for hospitals and doctor offices that analyze blood in 30 seconds what once took 20 minutes.
35. Land mine removal using flare device and leftover fuel donated from NASA.
36. Technology which allows vehicles to transmit a signal back to a home base.  Used to track and reassign emergency and public works vehicles; also track vehicle operations such as taxis, armored cars and vehicles carrying hazardous cargo.  Now used to recover stolen vehicles.
37. Cutters using small explosive charges used by emergency rescue personnel to quickly extract accident victims.
38. Image-processing technology used remove defects due to image jitter, image rotation and image zoom in video sequences.  Used by law enforcement agencies to improve crime-solving videos; doctors in medical imaging; scientific applications and even home video cameras.
39. Gas leak-detection system used by Ford in natural gas-powered car.
40. Method of labeling products with invisible and virtually indestructible markings - used on electronic parts, pharmaceuticals and livestock -- in fact it could be used on just about anything.
41. Fire resistant foam used as thermal and acoustical insulation in aerospace, marine and industrial products.  Also used as for fire barriers, packaging and other applications requiring either high-temperature or very low-temperature insulation.  Used by Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Airbus for for major weight savings in aircraft.
42. Hand-held camera which firefighters use to pinpoint the hotspots of wildfires.
43. Safer soldering base for jewelers using torches in jewelry assembly.  Based on heat-shield tiles of shuttle instead of hazardous asbestos bases previously used.
44. Quick-connect fasteners used by firefighters and nuclear power-plant repair technicians.
45. Game-controlling joystick for computers and entertainment systems.
46. Spray lube used for rust prevention; loosening corroded nuts; cleaning and lubricating guns and fishing reels; and lubricating and reducing engine friction.
47. World-wide television broadcasts.
48. Home insulation system which provides significant savings in home heating and cooling costs - uses technology of aluminum heat shield developed for Apollo spacecraft.
49. Laser technology used in artery catheters to spot areas of blockage and fire short bursts of laser beams to vaporize them - a  "cool" laser providing thousands of patients with an alternative to heart bypass surgery.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Benefits of the space program... Part 3
Posted by: defrag on Aug 11, 2007 2:21 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
50. New charged coupled devices (CCDs) used in breast examinations (mammographies) which images breast tissue more clearly than conventional x-rays.  Doctors then use a specially designed needle to extract a tiny sample (instead of a scalpel) saving time, money and pain.
51. "Smart" forceps made of composite material, with embedded fiber optics.  These obstetrical forceps allow doctors to measure the amount of pressure being applied to an infant's head during delivery.
52. Small pill-shaped transmitters  Used to monitor intestinal activity; blood pressure and temperature of infants still inside the womb; body functions of athletes and high-stress professionals such as firefighters and soldiers.
53. Technology to quickly arrange and analyze human chromosomes and detect genetic abnormalities that could lead to disease in infants.
54. Image processing software used in dermatology analysis to "decode" the shadow patterns and provided accurate heights and depths.
55. Roofs based on moonsuits that look stiff, but are flexible and expand in heat and contract in cold.  Used as covering of malls, stadiums and new airports like Denver International.
56. Padding in helmets, shin guards, chest protectors and aircraft seating.
57. Golf balls with greater accuracy and distance.
58. Lightning protection systems for aircraft.
59. Windshear detection and warning system for aircraft.
60. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TACS) now used by virtually all passenger aircraft.
61. Monitoring system which scans important documents at certain times and compares the differences between the images. The system detects changes in contrast, shape and other features. Used by museums and the National Archives to monitor historic documents and plan a way to stop any damage.
62. Landsat imagery to discover unknown archeology sites; reveal ancient coastlines; manage the harvesting of fish in the world’s oceans; calculate how well crops are doing, etc.
63. Robotic mother pigs which keep piglet formula (milk) cool until it is needed then heats and delivers the right amount at feeding time.
64. Improved spray nozzles for crop dusters.
65. New breathing system for firefighters made up of a face mask, frame and harness, warning device, and air bottle.  Weighs one-third less than old gear.
66. Virtual reality simulators for medical operations, flight training, truck driving, etc.
67. Hydroponics used by vegetable farmers to grow crops without soil.
68. Fluorometer instrument used to monitor plankton in the world's oceans.  Instrument measures amount of glow given off by plankton and other marine life that consume sunlight in their photosynthesis process.  Much of the world’s oxygen comes from plankton.
69. Oil spill cleanup using beeswax microcapsules.  The beeswax balls absorb oil and keep water out.  Absorbed oil is digested by microorganism enzymes inside the ball.  When the balls get full of digested oil, they explode and release environmentally safe enzymes, carbon dioxide and water.
70. Software to match and track whales.
71. DirectTV.
72. Satellite radio.
73. Fire-Resistant Aircraft Seats.
74. "Cool suit" which helps to improve the quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients.
75. Pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body.
76. Instruments to measure bone loss and bone density, without penetrating the skin.
77. Implant for delivering insulin to diabetics that provides more precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the burden of daily insulin injections.
78. Device for growing ovarian tumors so that tumors can be studied outside the body, without harm to the patient.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 -&nb