• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

Photo

The Red Planet never will seem quite the same again. On Saturday night, NASA’s second rover, Opportunity, safely landed on Mars. Within hours, the robot beamed never-before-seen images of the Red Planet, displaying a smooth and dark surface. The expeditions of Opportunity, as well as other spacecraft, reflect the federal government’s heightened interest in space exploration – and an opportunity for peaceful human progress. On Jan. 21, President Bush unveiled a proposed $1 billion budget increase for NASA, as well as hopes to return to the moon by 2020. With greater public attention focused on scientific endeavors, a question has been raised: Is space exploration worth the money? Recent polls suggest half of all Americans prefer the government spend NASA’s $1 billion on domestic issues, such as health care and education. Others claim the proposal simply serves as election year candy for Bush or as a form of U.S. competition with China’s plans for an unmanned moon landing in six years. But despite the president’s possible ulterior motives, space exploration must be preserved. It is this exploration into the depths of the unknown that helps to educate, motivate and inspire humanity. Space exploration satisfies humanity’s desire to investigate and understand. Since the earliest times, people have sought answers to questions about the universe. From the work of the Greek philosopher Anaximander (circa 610-546 B.C.) to the 20th century’s Edwin Hubble, humanity has searched for understanding of our universe. A starry night sky, though a rare occurrence in Los Angeles, stands as one of the greatest natural splendors. To many young children, such visuals are the first steps to a life-long interest in science, as well as a potential career. It is this sense of wonder that captures our imaginations and expands our minds beyond the boundaries of Earth. Ferdinand Coroniti, a professor in the UCLA Department of Physics and Astronomy, said, “Even people who aren’t trained in science find it interesting to know about a rover on Mars, about the microbiology of the human body. They do share an interest in this quest, as well.” But space exploration isn’t just inspirational, it’s financially realistic. Because such projects are at the frontier of space research, money is essential to developing new tools and equipment, training new scientists and engaging in new programs. However, an increase in NASA’s budget is not equivalent to a massive increase in taxes. Coroniti added, “The economy of the U.S. is now at a level of close to $10 trillion a year. And we’re talking about a project of about $1 billion. We should be able to devote a tiny fraction or our economic resources.” Wasteful pork-barrel spending should not be attributed to the scientists of NASA. One only needs to look at Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who arranged $480 million in government projects for his lightly populated state in 2002, to witness the true meaning of exorbitant spending. At the legislative session on Dec. 21, 2003, Stevens was asked how his state made out in the Defense Appropriations Bill. His response? “Like a bandit.” If this man can request so much money for his state, why can’t the United States allocate money for programs meant to benefit all people, with long-term results? Space exploration requires significant resources. But as Gaspard Duchene, a professor in the physics and astronomy department said, there are pay-backs, as well. Cell phones, for example, “have been massively improved by planetary probes sent far away into space tens or hundreds of millions of kilometers away.” Meanwhile, scientists use older technology once utilized by the military, often improving these inventions. Coroniti added, “Historically, the things we consider essential but take for granted – television, computers, radios – were motivated by technology that took part in these scientific processes.” Most recent expeditions, such as Saturday’s Mars landing, involve little

human harm. With unmanned spacecraft, scientists can explore without fear of lost lives. History Professor M. Norton Wise, who teaches a history of science class at UCLA, said, “I lived through Sputnik and missions to the moon. It was extremely exciting, tremendously stimulating. However, with the current fiscal crisis, sending humans to space would be too risky and expensive of a project. It would be irresponsible.” As technology develops, NASA will find even less incentive to provide actual human assistance in space. While humans can adapt to environments in ways robots cannot, unmanned machines also mean that fewer lives are on the line. UCLA takes pride in a long-standing relationship with space exploration. This quarter, the registrar lists sixteen undergraduate courses for the earth and space sciences department, as well as six different undergraduate astronomy classes. And in 1999, David Paige, an earth and space science professor at UCLA, controlled the landing of the Mars Polar Lander, becoming the first non-NASA scientist to do so. Space missions must continue because they positively affect the world, including our many scientists and students at UCLA. The projects of today can inform the scientific facts of tomorrow. The spacecraft, Opportunity, even may find that Mars was once a water world capable of sustaining life – a truly remarkable discovery. Said Coroniti, “You can’t put a dollar value on the payback of space exploration in any clean way because part of the payback is the philosophical, psychological. The quest for knowledge is, in some senses, an obligation we have as humans.”

Fried is a first-year history student. E-mail her at ifried@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.