He says Columbia's mission involved studying "major functions of the human body in the purer microgravity environment." However, very few of us spend any amount of time in microgravity, so the argument is circular - the only likely benefit of such research is for those who will go.

If there are other potential terrestrial benefits, then animal studies and human tissue culture studies in teleoperated environments would produce the same results with far less money and risk - or far more results for the same money.

He says the astronauts studied fire in space, and the ozone layer, and did climate observations. Again, this could be done in teleoperative mode and produce the same results with far less money and risk.

He points out that the space program provided an impetus for circuit miniaturization. Actually, it orginally came from *unmanned* rocketry, in the interests of reducing the weight of guidance systems, to increase the payload of ICBMs.

He says "DymerTM 200+ excimer angioplasty laser system was first used for studying atmospheric turbulence from satellites. It was later modified to help remove fatty buildup blocking arteries that could lead to heart attacks."

Yes, but this didn't require manned presence in space, and could've been developed for a tiny fraction of the cost for its health benefits alone.

The same might be said for all the other health- related technologies he touts.

He then goes to talk about the direct and spin-off benefits of unmanned space exploration, concluding, in a non sequitur: "I hope these examples have helped to create a better understanding of why people like the astronauts of the Space Shuttle Columbia and the many thousands of others who work in the aerospace industries have dedicated their lives ..."

I must be missing something. All of his examples sound like excellent support for arguments that teleoperated, unmanned space exploration would be a much better deal.

Klaes quotes the old Michael Faraday chestnut as a final defense: "What use is a newborn baby?"

Space may be the future, but space shuttles (an especially the late Columbia) are not newborns.

With their low launch rates and high expense, they are rather more like an artifically narrow birth canal in an aging mother. Shuttles have wings and a tail that a spacecraft doesn't need - - but that the U.S. Air Force insisted on as a condition of their support. Shuttle bays are large than needed for space exploration alone - because the U.S. military wanted to use shuttles to launch spy satellites. Design criteria like these contributed to high cost, low launch rates, and - as we've seen quite recently - much less safety than NASA claims.

I am not opposed in principle to manned space flight. In fact, I'm a huge fan of the idea. Which is why I say: let's figure out a way to retire the Shuttle program. With modern aerospace technology, it should be possible to launch astronauts in the proven styles of the Gemini, Apollo and Skylab programs, but even more safely and economically. It's time to go back - to the future.

Michael Turner is a long time reader of SpaceDaily and felt compelled to respond to recent articles that have asserted the case for space on what he believes to be very shaky grounds at best.

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
SpaceDaily
Search SpaceDaily
Subscribe To SpaceDaily Express
Space Analysis and Space OpEds

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News