Space Pioneer Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight

[Guest guest]

Space Science Pioneer Van Allen Questions Human Spaceflight

By Leonard David

Senior Space Writer

posted: 02:12 pm ET

26 July 2004

 

 

A leading space scientist has called to question the validity of

human spaceflight, suggesting that sending astronauts outward from

Earth is outdated, too costly, and the science returned is trivial.

 

 

 

The human spaceflight critic is no stranger to space -- in fact he's

a pioneer in the space science arena from the premier days of

satellites orbiting Earth.

 

 

 

James van Allen, Regent Distinguished Professor at the University of

Iowa, is the noted discoverer of radiation belts encircling Earth.

His seminal finding -- labeled the Van Allen radiation belts --

stemmed from the scientist's experiment that flew on Explorer 1,

America's first satellite to successfully orbit the Earth back on

January 31, 1958.

 

 

 

Van Allen's appraisal of manned space missions -- "Is Human

Spaceflight Obsolete?" -- is carried within the pages of the Summer

2004 volume of Issues in Science and Technology.

 

 

 

The quarterly policy journal is published by the Cecil and Ida Green

Center for the Study of Science and Society at the University of

Texas at Dallas in cooperation with the National Academy of Sciences

in Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

High time for calm debate

 

 

 

"My position is that it is high time for a calm debate on more

fundamental questions. Does human spaceflight continue to serve a

compelling cultural purpose and/or our national interest? Or does

human spaceflight simply have a life of its own, without a realistic

objective that is remotely commensurate with its costs? Or, indeed,

is human spaceflight now obsolete?" van Allen writes.

 

 

 

Van Allen's call for discussion is prompted in part by NASA's

grounding of the remaining space shuttle fleet following the

Columbia accident, while the agency takes steps to improve their

safety. Also, the scientist notes that President Bush has put on the

table "a far more costly and far more hazardous program" to return

humans back to the Moon and for sending astronauts to Mars and

worlds beyond.

 

 

 

Supporters of human spaceflight "defy reality and struggle to

recapture the level of public support that was induced temporarily

by the Cold War," van Allen charges.

 

 

 

"Almost all of the space program's important advances in scientific

knowledge have been accomplished by hundreds of robotic spacecraft

in orbit about Earth and on missions to the distant planets Mercury,

Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune," van Allen

writes. Similarly, robotic exploration of comets and asteroids "has

truly revolutionized our knowledge of the solar system," he adds.

 

 

 

Insignificant science: shuttle and station

 

 

 

Casting an eye on the space shuttle's contribution to science, van

Allen suggests they have been modest, "and its contribution to

utilitarian applications of space technology has been insignificant."

 

 

 

The still only partly put together International Space Station, van

Allen points out, has already garnered a price tag of some $30

billion. "If it is actually completed by 2010, after a total lapse

of 26 years, the cumulative cost will be at least $80 billion, and

the exuberant hopes for its important commercial and scientific

achievements will have been all but abandoned," he argues.

 

 

 

For those holding onto the promise of a "spacefaring world", van

Allen notes that such a vision is now muted, "represented by a total

of two persons in space -- both in the partially assembled

International Space Station -- who have barely enough time to manage

the station, never mind conduct any significant research."

 

 

 

Surviving motivation

 

 

 

Van Allen comments that "the only surviving motivation for

continuing human spaceflight is the ideology of adventure."

 

 

 

At the end of the day, van Allen concludes: "I ask myself whether

the huge national commitment of technical talent to human

spaceflight and the ever-present potential for the loss of precious

human life are really justifiable."

 

 

 

"Let us not obfuscate the issue with false analogies to Christopher

Columbus, Ferdinand Magellan, and Lewis and Clark, or with visions

of establishing a pleasant tourist resort on the planet Mars," van

Allen suggests.