Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would surely turn over in their graves upon hearing the news that in the second decade of the XNUMXs the United States will end the era of manned flights into space, without a coherent plan to continue
Aviv Barry
In recent months, NASA has announced the dates of the last flights of the space shuttle. After the return of Atlantis, the shuttles will be transported in honor on trucks to museums around the United States. In May "Endeavour" went on its last flight and at the end of the week the last mission of the space shuttle "Atlantis" is expected. This ends the space shuttle era that began in the eighties of the 20th century.
Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson would surely turn over in their graves upon hearing the news that in the second decade of the 50s the United States will end the era of manned flights into space, without a coherent plan to continue. And relying on a Russian (!) spacecraft to fly astronauts into space. By the way, a flight ticket in a Russian spacecraft for an American astronaut will only be XNUMX million dollars...
The news passed relatively quietly in our world saturated with news and flooded with information. At the same time, this is a first-rate historical event, which has and will have a great impact on space exploration in the future. To a certain extent, the book has been closed on the space flights that were designed in the spirit of the late 20th century and we have now turned to a different future, to an era in which the great space enterprises are the result of the cooperation of nations, but also the result of the efforts of commercial companies and/or capitalists whose considerations are different and different.
Remember, the space age began during the Cold War. The motivation for space exploration stemmed in part from the balance of atomic terror and the competitiveness and enmity between the two superpowers after World War II: the Soviet Union and the United States.
In the competition then, the United States undoubtedly won, landing several astronauts on the moon and returning them safely. On December 14, 1972, Eugene Cernan - Apollo 17 commander put the last human footprint on the moon in this era. Thus ended the first phase in the era of manned space travel (which is not here above us - above the earth).
In 1975, the last Apollo mission was launched: Apollo - Soyuz, during which the two spacecraft - the Russian and the American - met in space and performed joint maneuvers. This mission symbolizes the escape from the balance of horror of the Cold War and the beginning of international cooperation in space exploration.
It was a brave decision by President Nixon and the heads of NASA in the XNUMXs to give up the continuation of manned space travel towards Mars and return and discover our planet - Earth. The decision was, in part, also a result of the enormous American spending on the Apollo project, and the shocking expectation of the cost of flying astronauts to Mars. Although NASA's budgets have been cut, it seems that the change in priorities has only benefited human society. Focusing on the exploration of the Earth, the exploration of deep space and the solar system by other means, instead of trying to plant a flag on the soil of Mars, seems today to be the right decision. And, it must be said, it was probably necessary to wait for the technology to develop enough so that the same journey to Mars (which is not in sight even today) could start.
The space shuttle project is an outgrowth of this decision. It seems, today, that NASA's emphasis on Earth exploration has paid off. In an era where we are required to economize our steps and reduce the environmental effects of human society's activity on the planet, the vast knowledge accumulated in many fields allows us to move towards sustainable human activity on this planet - which is all we have.
The six shuttles that were built (one for testing and five for operation) made over 130 flights, put hundreds of crew members into space (over 800!), placed dozens of satellites in orbit around the Earth and made a decisive contribution to the construction of the International Space Station. With the help of the space shuttles, many experiments were carried out in space and in fact flying into space became a routine - a work routine.
In the face of these incredible numbers, we cannot forget that the ferry project ends with a rather shocking survival rate (two accidents), two crews paid with their lives, two ferries exploded and the huge investment in them went down the drain.
Although President Obama announced a new plan that may lead a man to Mars after 2030, it is clear to everyone that in the coming years NASA will focus more and more on research and its dependence on other factors will increase.
NASA's strategic change that emphasizes research and knowledge over space flight will be tested in the future. At the same time, despite the unmanned spacecraft, satellites, robots in space, etc., the man in the space program has always been the focus and motivation of the public to support and finance the space programs. How long could NASA continue without flesh and blood heroes, without the heroics of the space pilots? We will probably know in the near future.
A few words before ending: about a year ago I found David Abir's book "Adam on the Moon". This book is one of the heroes of my childhood, the pictures and parts of the text are deeply engraved in my memory. Thanks to "Adam on the Moon" real and imaginary space travel are part of my great loves. In the last few months I have read the book at least twice. In my opinion, this is one of the best books written on the subject, it presents the space race in a clear, professional manner. Relative to the years in which it was written (the late sixties), the book contains a lot of information about the Russian space program, which is presented in a fairly balanced way vis-a-vis the Americans. Now that the space shuttle flights are over, does anyone have thoughts of publishing a sequel?
20 תגובות
My opinion that space exploration and NASA in particular are one big waste in Israel was a great pride from the late Ilan Ramon, something that did not add anything to the State of Israel
just stupid:
Sorry, but I'm having trouble following what you're saying.
What were you talking about when you wrote in response 14 "I was talking here about pseudo-science"?
Not about space exploration?
After all, that's all you criticized before you wrote this sentence!
I don't know what you want and in light of the latest developments it has already ceased to interest me.
I did not claim that space exploration is partly pseudoscience, but that certain theories in biology are pseudoscience (like the claim that cancer is a modern disease, which was published in respected scientific journals). Thus I responded to your argument regarding the importance of "academic freedom".
There is no doubt that space exploration is important. The point is that, in my opinion, the budgets intended for it are inflated (for example, the Chinese are documenting to land a man on the moon. For what? For the glory of their country).
It is true that "investigation for the sake of investigation" also brings results (space exploration brought us satellites, anti-radiation goggles and many other applications). Nevertheless, there are subjects that are much more important and that their research can lead to applications that we did not think about at all (for example, financing tissue engineering/stem cells for medicine, can lead to the application of laboratory meat for food).
just stupid:
You didn't talk about pseudo-science, but about science, and by examining one keyboard you tried to claim that a significant part of it is unnecessary.
You were wrong.
This is a part that is not unnecessary at all.
The exploration of Mars may be intended by some people as a place to return, but other people know how to extract from it information about what may be expected of the Earth in different situations.
Not that the return to Mars is not an important goal in itself! It should be understood that in the long term it will be necessary for humans to find another place to live and since this is a huge task in its complexity and scope - there is nothing wrong with trying to promote it already today.
Space exploration also refers to the study of asteroids - a subject that if we don't deal with it - all the inhabitants of the planet may die.
Although if your plan is implemented - they will burn healthier - but it will not prevent their death.
Note: I referred to what you said and not what you might have meant.
You said that space research is a waste of money, thus proving that you are only interested in applied research.
In my response so far, I have shown you that space exploration also has important applied goals, but this is not at all the main thing I tried to explain to you in the previous response.
In the previous response I talked about the fact that investigation for the sake of investigation should also be allowed - without any intention of implementation.
Einstein drew conclusions from pointless (in your opinion) measurements made on Earth and space observations and developed a theory that deals with masses, energies and speeds that were not relevant to us at all and considered it a miracle: since Einstein's theory allowed us to understand things on these orders of magnitude - they became very relevant.
This is the nature of pure research, even if you think it has no value in itself (and thus - your opinion is different from mine) - neglecting it ultimately harms applied research.
In your last response, you also made it clear to us that space exploration is partly pseudo-science.
You were wrong in that too, but here the mistake is so gross that I believe there is no need for any explanation.
Michael Rothschild:
Forgive me for getting off topic. I am not dismissing the importance of space research, but the facts are that part of space research receives more importance than other subjects. True, thanks to space exploration we have satellites, something that advanced humanity in a very big way. But will Mars exploration help us? And fly astronauts to it? We both know the reason Mars is being studied - the curiosity of scientists and there... its settlement (even a NASA spokesperson announced that this is the purpose for which Mars is being studied). The budgets for other subjects are much smaller than NASA's inflated budgets.
And as I already mentioned - why isn't there a body that takes care of building an infrastructure for autonomous cars and takes care of it? It is much more important than Mars. 1.2 million people die a year from car accidents! Think about the amount of air pollution and traffic jams created by the current system and you will see that I am right in my criticism of space exploration.
Is academic freedom important? How does that relate to what I said? I was talking about pseudo-science here. You are the one who criticized Channel 10 for the New Age program in it, you are the one who criticizes alternative medicine. is not it?
just stupid:
Sorry to call you that but that's the nickname you chose.
Academic freedom and the possibility to engage in research that has no immediate application is part of the soul of science.
A very large part of the technological achievements of science derives from research that at the time it was carried out did not have any expected application.
So far in this discussion - no one has argued about academic freedom (and it's a good thing) and the whole debate has focused on the question of the research method (is it appropriate to endanger people at this stage or is it better not to do so).
In my opinion, space exploration is a waste of money compared to other issues that, by pouring money into, can advance humanity on a much greater level.
Examples:
*Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine: if we were to pour large amounts of money into research on these subjects, then they would bring us more benefit than space exploration. It doesn't surprise me that there are people who think that aging can be fixed by deleting "aging genes" (led by biologists who support the evolutionary theory of aging) or that antioxidants can stop aging (potentially dangerous because oxidation allows our existence). This is why people are attracted to alternative medicine (pseudo-science). It is not explained to them that cancer is a natural process caused by the oxidation process, free radicals, which causes genetic changes in the cell nucleus (thus, causing cancer to break out in a damaged cell). Why don't they appoint studies to transfer the genetic material from the cell nucleus to the mitochondria (and vice versa) and thus produce a universal cure for cancer? It saddens me to see that channels 2 and 10 are broadcasting pseudo-science (vaccines and cellular radiation cause cancer? That's what the commercial channels made the public think) and the hospitals are prescribing alternative medicine. There are many charlatans in biology. Not long ago, researchers published that cancer is a modern disease (!), which goes against everything we know (free radicals, a natural process, creates cancer, the fact that even before the industrial age there were people who were exposed to carcinogens such as by wood smoke, bacteria, viruses, etc. ).
*Autonomous cars: in about 7-12 years, the ability of vehicles to actually drive on the roads will be possible. Although we know it, no one prepares for this age. The USA does not have any Manhattan Project or an agency such as NASA. No one cares. What is needed are budgets that will finance the future infrastructure for such vehicles. With the help of a special infrastructure, it is possible to eliminate traffic lights, road signs, car insurance, the driver's license, the traffic police and basically all traffic laws because the transportation will be controlled by computers.
These are just examples of research topics that do not receive enough attention. And I do not agree with this statement that regenerative medicine receives enough research budgets, because it is absolutely not true.
to 8:
"I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve."
(Bilbo Baggins - Farewell Speech - Lord of the Rings / Tolkien)
;~)
The subject of manned research in space is indeed subject to controversy even among scientists.
One of the biggest opponents of it is the physicist Robert Park Schaaf wrote a lot about it in his book Voodoo Science.
There is no doubt that at some point in the future we will have to do this, but then - it is better that we know as much as possible about space.
The question is whether manned research in space is the right thing today. Does it advance us in the above knowledge more effectively than unmanned research? Park disagrees. He does not dispute that at some point in the future it will be the right thing to do.
It's all a matter of time, in my opinion man is currently not ready for a trip to Mars, more preparatory work is required... something that will take at least a few decades. In any case, the human race is not in such a hurry to become extinct, and a trip to space is something that will happen in any case.. The only question is when, there really is no rush with it..
To think-not-so-open-as-he-thinks-he-thinks (1)
One of the coolest things about science is that many times you can't tell what will emerge from research that may at the time seem esoteric and completely unnecessary. This has already happened so many times and in different fields such as pure mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and even in "softer" fields, that it really makes your criticism clearly unjustified. It's not that every study is good and worthy, there are quite a few studies that are bad in this respect that they don't really innovate anything or are just done in a careless way or not suitable for the question being studied. There are many, for example, who do not understand why money is invested in basic research in algae. If someone had to decide whether to continue the budgeting of such studies because they do not lead to "interesting" or productive results, then we would lose significant breakthroughs in several fields, such as the development of the optogenetic method
http://davidson.weizmann.ac.il/content/%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%98%D7%95%D7%92%D7%A0%D7%98%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9A-%D7%92%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%AA%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%94%D7%92%D7%99%D7%91-%D7%9C%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8-%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%9C
Which is already clear to everyone that this is a method that deserves (and will win) a Nobel Prize.
There is still no substitute for a human being's ability to investigate and examine things in an unmediated way and this also applies to the phenomena that exist in space and on other planets. With all due respect to the robots and cameras and the exciting discoveries they bring with them, it is still easy for me to imagine how a manned expedition could bring about sensational discoveries that would justify all the funds invested in this direction to date. And with a more far-reaching thought, there is no doubt that one day coming and going into space will not only be the result of curiosity but an actual need. Your complaints remind me a bit of people who are strongly opposed to animal testing and yet when they use without problems preparations, drugs and medical devices that were developed with the massive use of animals, which was essential to obtain this knowledge. This is hypocrisy. I am convinced that the knowledge gained in the context of manned expeditions to space will be extremely useful in the future and I would not be surprised if it would be the main thing that would allow the continued existence of the human race. Of course, this can also be debated (the value of the continued existence of the human species...), nevertheless, one should keep an open mind, one just has to be careful not to keep one's mind too open because then there is a danger that the mind will fall out... (paraphrasing a sentence by Marx, if I not wrong)
Thanks Leon.
In the illustration, not the International Space Station, but the 'Mir' station.
for an open mind,
Maybe it should be looked at as human exploration in space rather than manned space exploration.
It seems that in the end we will have to evacuate (at least some of us) from the blue ball.
And so the first steps look like a waste of resources.
My response to the first
What are you confusing?
Space exploration is the future of humanity.
Humans must get out of their blue bubble (Earth) otherwise we will slowly become extinct over time.
And this Obama destroyed not only NASA but the whole country.
How much have we lost because of "manned space exploration"
Sending people into space to do what? What research of scientific value has come out of having people in space?
is nothing!
With the money they could make dozens of unmanned spacecraft that would explore the solar system.
I hope that in my lifetime I will get to know what is hidden under the ice cover of Jupiter's moon Europa.
Without the ignorance they surely know this and therefore they are a curse
Manned space exploration is a stupid waste of resources driven by the "Captain Crack the Flying Cowboy" concept and which grew to grotesque proportions due to the Cold War.
The scientific and technological knowledge that grew out of the American space program did not grow out of manned research in space but due to the diversion of resources there due to the communism/capitalism testosterone wars.
A great deal of scientific information has come out of unmanned space research.
NASA's whining is because they have run out of "heroes", which means it will be difficult to milk resources from the Republican Congress.
Chinese colonies on the moon and in the future Mars, that's another story.
Someone said "free meteor shower on the head" and didn't get it? ("Tyranny is white" / Robert Heinlein)
Actually it shouldn't be too much of a concern.
The Chinese also plan to expropriate the moon's resources for themselves and the rest of humanity can jump.
Why, what will you do?
A democratic country cannot afford to send people to the moon today. It is too expensive to keep them alive and well. This is only possible for China.