By DAVE HAMRICK
Editor-at-large

Every time any little thing goes wrong in the space program, the same nattering nabobs rise up with the same tired refrain.

“We should close down the space program and spend that money here on earth.”

And so it is with the loss of an unmanned Mars explorer last week.

It's possible that a legitimate case could be made for privatizing the space program. After all, the federal government is involved in something that essentially boils down to a business enterprise.

There are always military possibilities, but those scare the anti-space crowd even more than the idea that we might be wasting dollars in space that we could waste here on earth just as easily and a lot more safely.

As a conservative, I truly don't want to see the federal government doing something that private companies could do just as well. But I would argue that the question of whether we've reached the point where NASA should back away is still open.

Meanwhile, there are always the arguments that “we” should never have gone into space to begin with. I'm never sure, when I hear that statement, whether the reactionaries are using “we” to refer to the government, or to humanity as a whole.

I'll deal with both concepts.

We, humanity, should be exploring space for the same reason that a shipwreck victim tossed on the shores of a deserted island should make a thorough survey of that island, its dangers and its resources. This should be his second priority, after dealing with food and shelter needs. It's imperative to know what's out there, because it could be a danger to us, and it could be a help to us.

By studying space, both outer and inner, we've learned that big old rocks come flying out of outer space and bombard our living space from time to time. It's extremely rare that one wipes out all living things, or even kills large numbers of plants and animals in its immediate neighborhood, but I would think that the consequences of failure to prepare in this case would be so great that even the most complacent ostrich among us would agree that contingency plans would be in order.

And from what I've read, we're not going to deal with that contingency by shooting nuclear missiles at whatever comes our way. We're going to have to go out there and deal with it. We may be at the point where we could deal with it using existing technology, but we most certainly would not be if it hadn't been for the space program.

And all those rocks floating around in the asteroid belt may very well hold the key to our future survival in other ways, by providing resources that are scarce and growing more so every day on earth.

Surely the most rabid environmentalist wouldn't mind if we mined a few asteroids, or maybe Mars.

Also, knowledge about our own earth is going to be needed if we are going to wisely manage its ecology. And although some of that knowledge can come by looking down, some of it is going to come by looking up. Studying the moon up close has given us valuable clues, and all those satellites hovering overhead have given us a whole new perspective.

As for benefits to humanity, the advances in communication, weather forecasting, our knowledge of trends in the earth's crust — those things alone would have been enough to justify our presence in space, not to mention all the technological achievements in everything from health care to transportation that have come as a direct result of the research we have to do to get into space.

Sure, some of those breakthroughs would have come anyway, but the only way they would come nearly as fast would be if we were involved in major wars.

Should the government be involved? I think that point's moot. Without the government to lead the way, we would never have advanced to this point. The investment and risks have been simply too great. Private corporations could no more have developed the space program than Columbus could have financed and manned his trip to the sunny Caribbean without Spain's help.

Is it time for private enterprise to take over, now that the trail has been marked?

That's a question that deserves some attention and discussion among the nation's leaders. There should definitely be a well thought-out plan to gradually back the government out and bring privately financed people of vision into the process.

For that matter, it couldn't hurt to put NASA up for sale lock, stock and barrel, and see if anybody bites.

Back to Opinion Home Page | Back to the top of the page