Question: Why Explore Space?

Answer: We shouldn't. At least not yet.

Recently, NASA administrator Michael Griffin (right) wrote an article defending his agency's bloated budget and unfocused vision entitled "Why Explore Space?". You can read the whole article for yourself here. It's mostly mealy-mouthed mush, simple explanations for the untrained mind, rambling on about the Pilgrims and accepted human loses in the name of a greater good. But he also attempts to defend himself from harsher critics as well, such as the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and myself.

The Board reported that space travel was expensive, dangerous, and difficult. I would add that the scientific rewards are insignificant and could easily be augmented if a small portion of NASA's enormous budget was transferred to studying Space Geology. Very little technology has advanced since the inception of the space program in the 1950s and I hardly think that Mr. Griffin can justify a budget $16.3 billion with the "innovations" of NERF balls and Tang.

Mr. Griffin responds to this criticism with two main points. First, he believes that exploring space has strategic benefits for the United States. Second, he believes that the focus of the Vision for Space Exploration provides America with a clear set of goals to reach. These include: Complete the International Space Station (by 2010), retire the Space Shuttle (2010), develop the Orion space vehicle (2008), explore the Moon (2008), and explore Mars and other destinations with manned and unmanned missions. But this set of goals does not match with Mr. Griffin's first point.

If space exploration provides a strategic advantage for the United States, then why is the nation all atwitter over China's exploits (left) in the past week. We are the most accomplished country in the history of the world as far as space exploration, but it has not provided any strategic advantage for us. Other countries gain anti-satellite technologies (the USSR in the 1980s, China currently) and it propogates a space arms race that diverts energy and money from gaining knowledge about space.

If we turned inward, looked more closely at the space that comes to us, we would not fall victim to these traps. Mr. Griffin offers a panacea with a pointed vision and grand rhetoric. But his logic is faulty and holds no answers. There are more questions we may resolve with our feet firmly on the ground than risking life and limb (not to mention billions of dollars) hurtling through space.