Tales Of Brave Ulysses

James van Allen, noted space scientist and discover of the radiation belts that cocoon the planet Earth, spoke out against human space flight in a recent essay.

Writing in the journal Issues in Science and Technology, van Allen calls for a rational examination of the costs versus the benefits of manned space flight. The costs are high, both in human lives and finances, and the scientific data returned is paltry compared to unmanned satellites and interplanetary probes.

In his book Race to the Stratosphere: Manned Scientific Ballooning in America (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1989), David H. De Vorkin describes the glowing expectations for high-altitude piloted balloon flights in the 1930’s. But it soon became clear that such endeavors had little scientific merit. At the present time, unmanned high-altitude balloons continue to provide valuable service to science. But piloted ballooning has survived only as an adventurous sport. There is a striking resemblance here to the history of human spaceflight.

“Almost all of the space programs 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.

Four decades of human space flight have proven one thing: Space is inimical to human life. It is a harsh place, full of radiation and debilitating zero gravity, to say nothing of the launch and re-entry hazards. To ensure the safety of astronauts, astronomical costs are incurred designing safety measures and backups; money that could be better spent on unmanned robotic missions to the frontiers of the solar system. A perfect example is NASA’s decision to abandon the Hubble Space Telescope in favor of completing the orbiting boondoggle also known as the International Space Station.