Catholic Sensibility

Since the 50's, one of the hot debates in space science circles has been who or what is better suited for exploration: human beings or remote controlled probes? While the shuttles remain grounded, Cassini and other probes continue to reap scientific information, including the Enceladus fly-by in the Saturn neighborhood. The space program was good in the 60's. A pacifist would approve, if for no other reason than the diverting of military budgets for the race to the moon. I could easily nod at contests overtaking arms build-ups as both more entertaining and less warlike. The notion that shutting down the space program for being a waste doesn't carry much weight with me. Only a blind optimist would think that money would be rolled into social programs. Or even tax cuts. Most likely is that it would be folded into the defense budget. And anything that deflates the defense budget for research is fine with me. I used to think that people in space was a good way to go. And I think we'll get there eventually. But there's no doubt that survey and weather satellites have more than proved their worth in earth orbit. Communications satellites pay for themselves ... or could, if they weren't being partially underwritten. And since human beings are nowhere close to Saturn, much less Mars, or even the moon, computer programmed robot probes are hands down the best choice for science research. The Deep Impact comet probe, though not a long term attention-getter, is probably the most significant mission of the decade. Why? Human beings need to know what is zooming around the near-Earth neighborhood: mainly, what these things are made of and how they're put together. We probably have about a thirty to fifty year window from the discovery of a collision object to Earth impact. If an object has our number--and it's only a matter of time before we find one--we will need the know-how to nudge it out of the way before it hits. Even though it wouldn't be as glamorous as going to Mars, I think a human mission to a near-Earth asteroid should be a higher priority. After a thorough robotic exploration, of course. It might be that in a few hundred years, we'll still be struggling to get people into space cheaply. But if a major collision object--a comet or asteroid--is heading our way, we'll need to make sure we have the capacity to nudge such an object out of the way in time. And if there are a few people on a moon or Mars colony by then, that would be nice. But I'd rather have a 6 sextillion ton planet under my feet with a habitable atmosphere and water and other life and all that than take my chances repopulating the human race on the moon. That's the one big reason why the space program must continue: for the survival of the species, if for no other reason.