News

Pro-Palestine Encampment Represents First Major Test for Harvard President Alan Garber

News

Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu Condemns Antisemitism at U.S. Colleges Amid Encampment at Harvard

News

‘A Joke’: Nikole Hannah-Jones Says Harvard Should Spend More on Legacy of Slavery Initiative

News

Massachusetts ACLU Demands Harvard Reinstate PSC in Letter

News

LIVE UPDATES: Pro-Palestine Protesters Begin Encampment in Harvard Yard

Where Are We Going To?

TAKING NOTE

By Christopher J. Georges

PREPARE FOR launch, American public; the term "space-age" may not refer to the future any longer. Space travel has advanced so significantly over the last decade that the even the concept of the colonization of space has moved off the movie screen and onto the drawing board. After a surge in the 1960s and subsequent curtailment, space technology now appears ready to move into a new era.

Frankly, the space world is abuzz. NASA officials, eager to capitalize on experience gleaned from the highly successful space shuttle program, are talking optimistically of a series of new ventures which include extensive commercialization of the space program, a revitalized planetary and space science effort, and a permanent manned space station project.

And while the success of such programs will ultimately depend on the support of Congress and the Administration, the ideas appear to have drawn public support and can even be considered a logical evolution of the space agency's overall program. Over the part three decades, the development of the space program has been based on three major decisions: Dwight Eisenhower's 1955 move to initiate space travel with the development of the Vanguard satellite; John F. Kennedy's 1961 decision to put people on the moon; and Richard M. Nixon's 1969 plan to do away with the disposable space craft and develop the shuttle. The next stop. NASA officials say, is to develop a permanent U.S. presence in space with an eye toward commercialization.

All systems are go, then, but doubts remain; exactly what are we blasting off toward?

Firstly, "commercialization" is a vague concept, and while it seems as though we're set to move in such a direction, few scientists seem able to to define exactly what it means. Clearly, NASA is not referring to expanding communications satellites since it has already done that. Nor is it referring to having private contractors manage the satellite as that would be "privitization" and not "commercialization," NASA officials say.

Instead, commercialization appears to mean the development of new space based industries. This concept, however, is hardly encouraging because it is still unclear what these new industries might be. Materials processing is often cited as a favorite example of this, but there would be nothing novel about this as the so-called "electrophoresis" process is already being developed by McDonnell Douglas and Johnson and Johnson aboard the space shuttle. Electrophoresis utilizes electrical and reduced gravitational forces to seperate mixtures and form pharmacuticals in space which are difficult to produce on Earth. And in other areas of materials processing, such as growing semiconductors, there is currently little in the way of a planned strategy.

Secondly, while NASA's plan for planetary exploration appears to be well outlined, other aspects of this program, primarily its long range research drive, appear shaky. In the past, NASA has supported, and in turn relied heavily on, university-based research. It is no secret, however, that the university space science community has fallen on hard times as a drop in funding since the 1970s has left most institutions with obsolete equipment and fewer and fewer graduate students. In fact, a recent NASA sponsored study concluded that university efforts will soon be unable to support the agency's current plans.

The final uncertainty is NASA's space station concept itself. While some studies have suggested that such a project may be feasible, NASA officials readily admit that the future direction of any such program is unclear. Moreover, the role of the military--a vital aspect of any such program--remains ambiguous as well. According to Thomas F. Rogers, director of the space station assessment project for the Conressional Office of Technology Assesment, the nation's vision of such a plan is is still "far too fuzzy." He adds, "Without a clearer, more thoughtful vision, how can we expect consensus. And without consensus, how can we rationally make long term commitments?"

While the U.S. space program appears ready for a long-awaited renewal, a clearer sense of direction is necessary before we find ourselves lost in space.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags