The editorial pages of many newspapers have congratulated NASA on the success of the Deep Impact mission. However, they are using the mission in different ways to support their own viewpoints on space policy issues:
- The Salem (Mass.) News sees Deep Impact as evidence that America “still reigns supreme when it comes to space exploration”. It lumps Deep Impact in with the upcoming launch of STS-114, which the paper also staunchly supports, noting that while shuttle flights are not without risk, “fortunately the United States has always been a nation of risk-takers and innovators.”
- The Scranton (Penn.) Times-Tribune sees the success of Deep Impact as a sign that human spaceflight is passé. “It is a further reminder that in the modern era, NASA’s and America’s greatest achievements in space are in the realm of science rather than manned exploration.” The paper, though, seems hopeful that NASA administrator Michael Griffin, despite his support for manned space exploration, “seems to have a strong sense of the value, rather than the cost alone, of productive science missions” and will restore a Hubble servicing mission.
- The Baltimore Sun concludes that Deep Impact “is another example of the wisdom of NASA’s Discovery Program” of relatively low-cost science missions. The editorial quizzically adds that “the agency is readjusting its long-term focus – though not as far as the far-out ‘man on Mars’ talk of last year, we expect.”
The Salem News (like parts of NASA) has borrowed a page from the war on terrorism in lumping together a proportionate success with a colossal fiasco. If they really think that Deep Impact has anything to do with human spaceflight, they should discuss a manned version of it.
On the bright side, the Scranton and Baltimore editorials simply get it right.
Salem got it right, Scanton and Baltimore got it wrong..
One thing I’ve never understood about people who reject human space flight in favor of machines is why they never figure out how much better it would be to have people there.
Do you like what Deep Impact did? Fine. Now think how much more we’d learn if we actually had people on the scene conducting research, rather than peering at it from 80 million miles away.
Like what’s those machines on Mars have done? Fine. Now imagine how much more a few flesh-and-blood scientists would have accomplished. (And they wouldn’t have been stuck for weeks in a few inches of dirt.)
Unmanned robotic missions are largely a poor substitute for humans being there. Better than nothing but not a whole lot. Other than risk reduction for future human presence, I see little value in them at all. In fact, some times they are a distraction.
Persoanlly, I find the continued survival and prosperity of the human species far more interesting than a handful of esoteric science experiments.
Knowledge of Titan is nice but near worthless unless we plan on going there someday.
You guys are talking about a lot of science fiction that is not in anyone’s real plans. The space shuttle has nothing to do with comets, Mars, survival, or prosperity. In fact, the space shuttle no longer does anything new at all. It is new money for a tired, old show.
If you think that Deep Impact is just a distraction, fine, we can agree to disagree. I think it’s cool, but it isn’t a sacred cow to me. You can punish success and failure both if you think that it’s all pointless. What you should not do is punish success and reward failure.
” The space shuttle has nothing to do with comets”
“What you should not do is punish success and reward failure.”
Strawman, I am not referencing the shuttle program.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld, you go to space with the spacecraft you have.
While Rumsfeld was most assuredly correct in saying “you go to war with the Army you have” that does not in any way translate to NASA and it’s mission. You do what you can with what you have, but just like the Army you also continually replace and/or upgrade “what you have” with something new, better or at least better suited to the job.
Shuttle is what we have and it will be used to complete the job it was designed for (or more truthfully complete the job that was designed for it) and that is to complete (to some degree) the ISS. We will then be bringing on another craft and other support vehicles that are better suited for the mission of going to the Moon, Mars and quite literally “Beyond”.
Snide admonitions of the shuttle having nothing to do with comets etc., bring nothing to the argument. Just another example of Kuperbergs rock throwing.
Greg, you sound like one of those folks who would have told Europeans in the 1500’s to stay home and fix up the neighborhood.
There is no more of science fiction in today’s aspirations to exploit and settle the Solar System than there was science fiction in the aspirations of Europeans to exploit and settle the Americas.
Rock-throwing is Officially In.
Kuperberg: “Rock-throwing is Officially In.”
That’s actually funny!
And an awesome picture in it’s own right as well.
Greg,
I refuse to have my tax money being spent just so a bunch of people like who think space is their own playground. I don’t mind having a 50% human and 50% robots in space. Robots can do so little… Nothing beats the human mind..
I’m all for Space Science, but using Space Science to justify Human Spaceflight is a dead end. If you do that then having human spaceflight for Space Development and Space Inhabitation will be a harder road. Once the develpment is underway, then it will be cheaper for space science, be it robotic or human. We can walk and chew gum at the same time, so why don’t we do that and stop the infighting?
Greg, do you honestly think human space flight is stupid and pointless or do you just want a human’s activities in space to change before we send more up? ie give them more meaningful missions other than mixing urine with paint and the like. I don’t think human spaceflight is completely hopeless, don’t forsake it just yet Greg…
I don’t think that all human spaceflight that there ever has been or will ever be is necessarily pointless. I won’t speculate on the unforseeable. But I do think that all government-funded human spaceflight that we have now, and all realistic plans for it today, is pointless. I am excepting Burt Rutan, who pulled off a great stunt without government funding. And I am excepting completely unrealistic plans like manned missions to Mars. Bush only gave that idea lip service.
If you can’t think of any realistic plans, why not wait until you have some? Not all exploration is useful for the future. You can look at what happened to the Viking colony in Greenland. And you can look at what’s going to happen to the space station in a few years too.
Greg,
How do you think your precious Hubble is going to be fixed? Is it going to be fixed by Robots or Humans???
Kevin,
Hubble isn’t precious to me. Hubble has done great things, but so did Charlie Chaplin, who I never married.
Hubble is designed to be serviced by astronauts, to its detriment. It would have been faster, better, and cheaper to launch a series of disposable space telescopes, but NASA was only willing to do it the hard way. If the shuttle returns to flight, then one of the flights might go to Hubble. If not, then we have already seen the end (for now) of astronaut participation in space science. C’est la vie.
I think we should scrap the Hubble and spend the money on more useful missions i.e. Human Missions to back to the Moon and Mars..