I couldn’t help but think of that famous phrase (which, ah, knowledgeable readers will recognize as the words of Emil Faber, founder of Faber College of “Animal House” fame) when reading the American Astronomical Society’s policy statement about the Vision for Space Exploration. The statement can be distilled to its first sentence: “The American Astronomical Society urges that a vigorous, focused program of scientific research form the core of the implementation of the Vision for Space Exploration.” The statement doesn’t go into many specifics about how science should shape the overall Vision, or how scientific goals should be balanced with other goals (political, technological, commercial, etc.) Nor does the document attempt to prioritize scientific goals itself, in terms of lunar and Martian science, other planetary science, astronomy, and so on. Just remember, the statement notes, “Exploration without science is tourism.”
“Exploration without science is tourism.”
Shouldn’t this be:
Exploration without science is engineering.
This organization seems to have a contemptuous attitude to space tourism, and engineers too.
The policy statement reveals two cynical truths about NASA in our times. First, in any other year AAS could have written exactly the same statement as a discussion of NASA’s priorities. But since the VSE is Bush’s “vision”, they have to phrase it in terms of the VSE. Which is not hard to do, since the VSE is so lofty that it could encompass just about any space mission. It might simplify matters if they renamed NASA as VSEA – the “Vision for Space Exploration Agency”.
Second, although science and tourism are not the only conceivable kinds of exploration, human spaceflight at NASA really has degenerated to space tourism. I do not object to space tourism on its own terms: bankrolled by zillionaires in the private sector. But the NASA version is a farce. It is space tourism at colossal public expense, for the benefit of a select royal class of astronauts.
You could call it “space tourism” if it allowed others to go. At most its “space voyeurism”.
-MM
I would also add that exploration without commerce is pointless.
I’d just like to move beyond the point where we’re space-visiting and get to where we’re space-faring.
Obviously Greg Kuperberg deserves one of these.
Buzz, you rock!
Ken,
Existing and planned human spaceflight at NASA is exploration without either science or commerce. So in this case, your distinction is moot.
Even so, why do you argue that the only point of knowledge is to make money? If the Devil offered you a million dollars a year in exchange for permanent illiteracy, would you take it?
Greg,
Current NASA human spaceflight is not exploration by any stretch of the imagination. I don’t explore my own house after I have lived in it for years. Exploration implies visiting somewhere you haven’t been.
Greg asked “why do you argue that the only point of knowledge is to make money?”
What I said was that “exploration without commerce is pointless”. Money is just one of the means of expressing a trade in value (and a convenient one at that). In a barter situation there is no money exchanged, yet each party has derived satisfaction. So commerce is about trade and finding value. Consequently, to answer your rather silly question of “If the Devil offered you a million dollars a year in exchange for permanent illiteracy, would you take it?” the answer is clearly no. Permanent illiteracy has what is for me a negative infinite value, and consequently the pathetic sum of $1Mn, or even $1Bn (oh the good works I could do with that), is paltry in comparison. Besides, I wouldn’t be able to read the contracts I was signing and the money would be gone in a flash. What a goofy question!
Knowledge is good. Applied knowledge is better, because it works to benefit people in some way, making the world a better and more prosperous place. It’s interesting to know that there is a planet around a star 150 ly away. It’s important to know what’s going on in the local neighborhood and keep an eye on near Earth objects. Both represent an increase in knowledge, but which has the more immediate and relevant value?