Space+Travel

Jan 22nd 2009
 * Space Travel **

 NASA 2009 Budget = $21 billion Of places close enough for people to visit, Mars is the only one that anybody seriously thinks might support life. The recent confirmation of a five-year-old finding that there is methane in the Martian atmosphere has therefore excited the hopes of exobiologists—particularly as the sources of three large plumes of the gas now seem to have been located. These sources are probably geological but they might, just, prove to be biological. The possibility of life on Mars is too thrilling for mankind to ignore. But how should we explore such questions—with men, or machines? Since America is the biggest spender in space, its approach will heavily influence the world’s. George Bush’s administration strongly supported manned exploration, but the new administration is likely to have different priorities—and so it should.  In space travel, as in politics, domestic policy should usually trump grandiose foreign adventures. Moreover, cash is short and space travel costly. Yet it would be a shame if man were to give up exploring celestial bodies, especially if there is a possibility of meeting life forms—even ones as lowly as microbes—as a result. Technology means that man can explore both the moon and Mars more fully without going there himself. Robots are better and cheaper than they have ever been. They can work tirelessly for years, beaming back data and images, and returning samples to Earth. They can also be made sterile, which germ-infested humans, who risk spreading disease around the solar system, cannot. Humanity, some will argue, is driven by a yearning to boldly go to places far beyond its crowded corner of the universe. If so, private efforts will surely carry people into space (though whether they should be allowed to, given the risk of contaminating distant ecosystems, is worth considering). In the meantime, Mr Obama’s promise in his inauguration speech to “restore science to its rightful place” sounds like good news for the sort of curiosity-driven research that will allow us to find out whether those plumes of gas are signs of life. [|NASA]'s **Space Shuttle**, officially called **Space Transportation System** (**STS**), is the [|United States] government's current [|manned] [|launch vehicle]. The winged [|Space Shuttle orbiter] is launched vertically, usually carrying five to seven [|astronauts] (although eight have been carried) and up to 50,000 [|lb] (22 700 [|kg]) of payload into [|low earth orbit]. When its mission is complete, the [|shuttle] can independently move itself out of orbit (by means of its maneuvering thrusters) and [|re-enter] the [|Earth]'s atmosphere.
 * Why NASA should give up its ambitions to send men into space **
 * Criticism of the Space Shuttle program ** has been present due to claims that the [|Shuttle program] has failed to achieve its promised cost and utility goals, as well as design, cost, management, and safety issues.[|[1]] More specifically, it has failed in the goal of greatly reducing the cost of space access. Space shuttle incremental per-pound launch costs are not appreciably cheaper than that of expendable launchers.[|[2]] It failed in the goal of achieving reliable access to space, partly due to multi-year interruptions in launches following Shuttle failures.[|[3]] NASA budget pressures caused by the chronically high NASA Space Shuttle program costs have eliminated NASA manned space flight beyond low earth orbit since Apollo, and severely curtailed more productive space science using unmanned probes.[|[4]] NASA's promotion of and reliance on the Shuttle slowed domestic commercial [|expendable launch vehicle] (ELV) programs until after the 1986 [|//Challenger// disaster].[|[5]] The space program has failed to inspire, excite, or motivate the current American public as the previous [|Mercury], [|Gemini], and [|Apollo] projects did for earlier generations.[|[6]] 

