I think myself they have a point - and am glad I am not a politician who has to decide it.
If it is just expressing their own opinion - e.g. how they want to vote, or what they think we should do - well we are all free to have views on this and other topics. That's how democracy works.
As for myself, my own vote - I do think we need to fix things on Earth. But I am also am glad that we do spend a fair amount on space exploration. But not sure at all that we are spending that money wisely in this field. Especially as the lion's share has always gone to the missions to send astronauts into space - and - not at all sure that the way they do this is the best use of all that money.
I do have a fair number of personal gripes around the way we do space exploration. E.g. the ISS - so much to do with politics - especially the human space program - and not really so very much to do with science. Do do a lot of good science, not saying that - but is not designed to be optimal for science. Is designed as a place where we can send many astronauts from many countries and have them spend a few months in space.
If your aim was to get as many people to experience space conditions as possible, using present day technology, and without attempting to find a better way of doing things (such as closed system habitats and artificial gravity) - and with a bit of science while you are at it - that's the ISS - as I see it.
The way that NASA decides policy through presidential grand visions - and informed by their decadal review every ten years - that doesn't seem to work well either.
In principle it should do - but they don't really pay attention to all the white papers submitted. In the last one particularly - they ignored the advice of some biologists who argued in a very strongly worded white paper (strongly worded for academics at least) that we should not do a sample return from Mars at this point in time - at least - that they don't advise it for biology - which as it turns out is NASA's main reason for doing it.
They said that it is likely to be no more interesting for biology than the controvesial and inconclusive Mars meteorite research we already have. They went into a lot of technical detail about why they expect this to be the case.
So - that was not even mentioned in the summing up and they made a Mars sample return their priority for the next 20 years. What's the point in asking for white papers if you don't pay attention to what they say? Especially when the main aim is to find out if there is life on Mars, and the paper is from professional exobiologists who have devoted their careers to just this topic - and they say it is not the way to do it?
So - that's what I'd say - that - what we need to do is to pay more attention to the way that decisions are made in space policy. That there are too many mistakes made. Too often that they start on a grand program, but have not thought it through properly - and then it fails. And often there have been people right from the start saying "this won't work" but they are not listened to.
ESA makes far more sense in their long term plans with in situ exploration. And to my mind - they seem to have far more sensible processes of policy making.
They do have failures, for technical reasons - but not this thing that NASA has of embarking on a big project, then a new president comes in, or some change of climate of opinion in a decadal review - and they head off on another tack - and then 4 or 8 or 10 years later do the same thing again. Sort of impulsively and not paying much attention to people who bring up issues with the ideas.
Gripes aside though
But - by in large I see a lot of potential in space exploration. So many things we are learning and could learn.
Especially - in the future - things we could learn about the origins of life, and exobiology - eventually practical things also.
And things that are exciting and interesting also. And that may help to fix things on the Earth. And open us to new horizons and so on.
So many things we have now - that directly benefit the Earth:
Things we may have in the future - though some have both plus and negative sides, but if done well would directly benefit the Earth
That last one alone - given the importance of medicine, and crops, food, animals, our own health, and products of life like wood, plastics, etc. That alone could pay for the entire space program.
It has a downside also - that it could be risky - especially returning life from another planet to Earth based on a different biochemistry. We have to take great care in all these innovations I think. In situ studies better here I think to start with (another reason not to be keen on the Mars sample return idea to return materials to Earth before we know if it is of biological interest or has any biology in it).
Apart from that - well - perhaps to say - that civilization is not about just surviving.
That's a bit like saying to someone who has a low income "you shouldn't buy books, or cinema tickets, or watch TV because you should spend all your money on staying alive".
It's all the other stuff that makes us human. And poor countries also often embark on grand projects.
After all India has a space program, and is admired for it world wide. Especially their new MOM mission to Mars.
India’s First Mars Probe ‘MOM’ Blasts Free of Earth Joining MAVEN in Race to Red Planet
They got a lot of criticism, internally and externally. But it's not like they are spending even a significant amount of their own space budget on this. Mostly they do things that are of benefit to Indians directly.
And - they did it at a remarkably low cost, also.
It's not a particularly cutting edge program as far as the science they plan to do - is their very first Mars mission, and is more like a technology demo. Nevertheless they have managed to include a methane sensing instrument that may well complement existing studies of Mars. And - if they do succeed in this, will become one of only a few nations that have ever done this. US, ESA, and Russia I think are the only ones - plus Japan tried and failed.
Hopefully will lead to more India Mars missions in the future. At any rate is looking good so far, everything going to plan on its way to Mars.
And it gives Indians immense pride in their own space program - and leads to interest in science for their young children and growing adults - and helps them to be actively involved in the international space program.
So - there are many other things you can do. You can build huge inspirational statues, or temples if of religious inclination. You can paint beautiful paintings. You can plan out wonderful inspirational gardens. Do adventurous things like jump from the edge of space. Or crazy things. Dive to the lowest depths of the sea.
You can spend your life single handedly making a beautiful inspirational garden, like Nek Chand Saini
Or plant a 1360 acre forest, again from India (for some reason all these examples are from India maybe because I mentioned the Indian space program) Indian Man Single-Handedly Plants 1,360 Acre Forest
It's this sort of thing that makes us human. We take on projects and sometimes everyone else thinks we are crazy for doing it, but we still persist.
Sometimes entire nations do things that other countries completely are unable to understand.
That's just what we do and how we are. And I'm all for it myself!
While at the same time totally saying we have to deal with the problems here on Earth. And that we do need politicians and decision makers. But glad I'm not one myself - must be such a hard job. But we can all vote, at least in a democracy - and take part by expressing opinions etc.
For the solar power from space see What are the risks of solar satellites beaming energy to Earth? How beneficial can they be? Is there a programme going on to prepare to deploy them?
If it is just expressing their own opinion - e.g. how they want to vote, or what they think we should do - well we are all free to have views on this and other topics. That's how democracy works.
As for myself, my own vote - I do think we need to fix things on Earth. But I am also am glad that we do spend a fair amount on space exploration. But not sure at all that we are spending that money wisely in this field. Especially as the lion's share has always gone to the missions to send astronauts into space - and - not at all sure that the way they do this is the best use of all that money.
COULD DO THE SPACE EXPLORATION BETTER
I do have a fair number of personal gripes around the way we do space exploration. E.g. the ISS - so much to do with politics - especially the human space program - and not really so very much to do with science. Do do a lot of good science, not saying that - but is not designed to be optimal for science. Is designed as a place where we can send many astronauts from many countries and have them spend a few months in space.
If your aim was to get as many people to experience space conditions as possible, using present day technology, and without attempting to find a better way of doing things (such as closed system habitats and artificial gravity) - and with a bit of science while you are at it - that's the ISS - as I see it.
NASA AND US METHODS FOR DECIDING SPACE POLICIES - SEEMS TO BE - IF NOT FUNDAMENTAL FLAWED - AT LEAST - LESS THAN OPTIMAL
The way that NASA decides policy through presidential grand visions - and informed by their decadal review every ten years - that doesn't seem to work well either.
In principle it should do - but they don't really pay attention to all the white papers submitted. In the last one particularly - they ignored the advice of some biologists who argued in a very strongly worded white paper (strongly worded for academics at least) that we should not do a sample return from Mars at this point in time - at least - that they don't advise it for biology - which as it turns out is NASA's main reason for doing it.
They said that it is likely to be no more interesting for biology than the controvesial and inconclusive Mars meteorite research we already have. They went into a lot of technical detail about why they expect this to be the case.
So - that was not even mentioned in the summing up and they made a Mars sample return their priority for the next 20 years. What's the point in asking for white papers if you don't pay attention to what they say? Especially when the main aim is to find out if there is life on Mars, and the paper is from professional exobiologists who have devoted their careers to just this topic - and they say it is not the way to do it?
So - that's what I'd say - that - what we need to do is to pay more attention to the way that decisions are made in space policy. That there are too many mistakes made. Too often that they start on a grand program, but have not thought it through properly - and then it fails. And often there have been people right from the start saying "this won't work" but they are not listened to.
ESA makes far more sense in their long term plans with in situ exploration. And to my mind - they seem to have far more sensible processes of policy making.
They do have failures, for technical reasons - but not this thing that NASA has of embarking on a big project, then a new president comes in, or some change of climate of opinion in a decadal review - and they head off on another tack - and then 4 or 8 or 10 years later do the same thing again. Sort of impulsively and not paying much attention to people who bring up issues with the ideas.
Gripes aside though
POTENTIAL FOR SPACE EXPLORATION - THINGS WE HAVE NOW
But - by in large I see a lot of potential in space exploration. So many things we are learning and could learn.
Especially - in the future - things we could learn about the origins of life, and exobiology - eventually practical things also.
And things that are exciting and interesting also. And that may help to fix things on the Earth. And open us to new horizons and so on.
So many things we have now - that directly benefit the Earth:
- GPS - used for navigation world wide
- Weather and climate monitoring and climate change studies - numerous things we learn from space observation
- Asteroid surveys to warn - and prevent (eventually) impacts from space
FUTURE THINGS
Things we may have in the future - though some have both plus and negative sides, but if done well would directly benefit the Earth
- Space Mining - could bring almost unlimited amounts of useful rare metals like Platinum, instead of a precious metal could be used in all our machines (of course this also needs care - what happens to all the valuable platinum jewelry - does it become worthless? What happens to the platinum industry on Earth - what also happens if this produces trillions worth of income for space industries, can our economy handle that?)
- Solar satellites - beaming energy to Earth. I think we might see this in near future
- From study of exoplanets around other stars - to understand a lot more about how the Earth works
- Last and most important - to find out about origins of life, especially also eventually - either alternative biochemistry - or to fill in the huge gaps in our understanding of the origins of life.
DISCOVERIES REGARDING LIFE PARTICULARLY - COULD BE TOTALLY GROUND BREAKING FOR OUR CIVILIZATION
That last one alone - given the importance of medicine, and crops, food, animals, our own health, and products of life like wood, plastics, etc. That alone could pay for the entire space program.
It has a downside also - that it could be risky - especially returning life from another planet to Earth based on a different biochemistry. We have to take great care in all these innovations I think. In situ studies better here I think to start with (another reason not to be keen on the Mars sample return idea to return materials to Earth before we know if it is of biological interest or has any biology in it).
CIVILIZATION IS NOT JUST ABOUT SURVIVING
Apart from that - well - perhaps to say - that civilization is not about just surviving.
That's a bit like saying to someone who has a low income "you shouldn't buy books, or cinema tickets, or watch TV because you should spend all your money on staying alive".
It's all the other stuff that makes us human. And poor countries also often embark on grand projects.
After all India has a space program, and is admired for it world wide. Especially their new MOM mission to Mars.
India’s First Mars Probe ‘MOM’ Blasts Free of Earth Joining MAVEN in Race to Red Planet
They got a lot of criticism, internally and externally. But it's not like they are spending even a significant amount of their own space budget on this. Mostly they do things that are of benefit to Indians directly.
And - they did it at a remarkably low cost, also.
It's not a particularly cutting edge program as far as the science they plan to do - is their very first Mars mission, and is more like a technology demo. Nevertheless they have managed to include a methane sensing instrument that may well complement existing studies of Mars. And - if they do succeed in this, will become one of only a few nations that have ever done this. US, ESA, and Russia I think are the only ones - plus Japan tried and failed.
Hopefully will lead to more India Mars missions in the future. At any rate is looking good so far, everything going to plan on its way to Mars.
And it gives Indians immense pride in their own space program - and leads to interest in science for their young children and growing adults - and helps them to be actively involved in the international space program.
So - there are many other things you can do. You can build huge inspirational statues, or temples if of religious inclination. You can paint beautiful paintings. You can plan out wonderful inspirational gardens. Do adventurous things like jump from the edge of space. Or crazy things. Dive to the lowest depths of the sea.
You can spend your life single handedly making a beautiful inspirational garden, like Nek Chand Saini
Or plant a 1360 acre forest, again from India (for some reason all these examples are from India maybe because I mentioned the Indian space program) Indian Man Single-Handedly Plants 1,360 Acre Forest
It's this sort of thing that makes us human. We take on projects and sometimes everyone else thinks we are crazy for doing it, but we still persist.
Sometimes entire nations do things that other countries completely are unable to understand.
That's just what we do and how we are. And I'm all for it myself!
While at the same time totally saying we have to deal with the problems here on Earth. And that we do need politicians and decision makers. But glad I'm not one myself - must be such a hard job. But we can all vote, at least in a democracy - and take part by expressing opinions etc.
For the solar power from space see What are the risks of solar satellites beaming energy to Earth? How beneficial can they be? Is there a programme going on to prepare to deploy them?
About the Author
Robert Walker
Writer of articles on Mars and Space issues - Software Developer of Tune Smithy, Bounce Metronome etc.Studied at Wolfson College, Oxford
Lives in Isle of Mull
4.8m answer views110.4k this month
Top Writer2017, 2016, and 2015
Published WriterHuffPost, Slate, and 4 moreHuffPost, Slate, Forbes, Newsweek, Business Insider, and Science 2.0