Neil deGrasse Tyson, the director of the Hayden Planetarium, answers a reader's question:
Q. I'm very surprised that you advocate manned spaceflight to the moon, Mars and beyond. I believe our emphasis should be on robotic exploratory spacecraft like Voyager, Galileo, Cassini and the like. There is not a more cost effective way to enhance our understanding of the Universe. -- Richard J. Seuffert
A. Yes, I agree. And if scientific discovery were the only driver for space exploration, then we would simply never send people. But science is not, and has never been, the only driver. To think otherwise in delusional. Other factors include national pride (the recent Chinese Astronaut and the Japanese Astronauts that have visited the space station are as popular as rock stars in their home countries), national security (the military quest for the "high ground" is eternal), and the socio-political value of large NASA contracts that spread across congressional districts. Another driver, which philosophically floats above the rest, is the human urge to explore, with or without a science agenda. Note that hardly any of the great explorers of the past were scientists. And so we should recognize that the urge to visit a planet, simply because we have not done so before, expresses a desire, if not a need, that transcends time and culture.
My question: Why aren't you in charge of NASA, Mr. Tyson, and who can I sue, because you're not?
No comments:
Post a Comment