Public Opinion About Space Exploration - Should Space Travel Be A Science Priority?

In the 1960s television show Star Trek space was called "the final frontier." While this may be true from a philosophical viewpoint, it does not apply as well to the realm of science. Geneticists, oceanographers, geologists, and biologists would argue that there are still many scientific and medical frontiers to be explored on Earth.

Since 1998 marine biologist Sylvia Earle has been an explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society. That same year Time magazine named her a "hero for the planet." In March 2004 the Associated Press asked Earle about NASA's recent discovery that water once existed on Mars (Mars Critics Wonder if Billions Aren't Better Spent Elsewhere, Environmental News Network, March 9, 2004).

Earle stated that "the resources going into the investigation of our own planet and its oceans are trivial compared to investment looking for water elsewhere in the universe. Real oceans need scientific attention more than the dried-up remnants on Mars." She said that she does not want to cut funding for space science, but noted that "we have better maps of Mars than our own ocean floor. That's just not right."

Amitai Etzioni is a sociologist at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Etzioni believes that the scientific community should focus more attention on Earth's oceans, because of their potential to yield new energy and food sources or medical breakthroughs that would benefit humanity. He too criticizes the millions spent looking for water on Mars and asks, "What difference does it make to anyone's life?"

The sociologist is a long-time critic of America's space program and NASA's operation of it. He wrote the 1964 book Moon Doggle that questioned the scientific value of putting astronauts on the moon and criticized NASA for favoring expensive manned missions over cheaper, more productive robotic missions. This complaint has been a common one in the scientific community from the 1960s onward.

Astronomers and physicists fought throughout the 1970s and 1980s for large, sophisticated observatories to be put in space to gather data about solar and galactic phenomena. FIGURE 9.6
Public opinion poll on discontinuing NASA or decreasing its funding, January 1984–August 2003 Time and again funding for their programs was slashed, because NASA needed more money for the space shuttle and International Space Station (ISS) programs. NASA's Great Observatories (including the Hubble Space Telescope) eventually did make it into orbit.

Although smaller and weaker than what scientists originally wanted, these observatories are considered some of space science's greatest triumphs. The Hubble Space Telescope alone has captured thousands of images of celestial objects and greatly advanced human understanding about the origins and workings of the universe.

In January 2004, however, NASA announced it would let Hubble fall out of orbit before the end of its useful life. The observatory needs an altitude boost that only a space shuttle mission can give it, but NASA does not want to risk astronaut lives for such a purpose. Since the 2003 Columbia disaster the Agency has been hypersensitive about shuttle safety issues. Also, NASA has switched its focus to President George W. Bush's new space travel mandate. This plan calls for devoting shuttle missions to finishing the ISS as soon as possible and then retiring the shuttle fleet. Bush wants NASA to concentrate on developing a new spacecraft for long-distance flights to the Moon and Mars.

The Hubble telescope decision met with disapproval from many astronomers and space scientists who were once again disappointed to see human missions given priority over robotic ones. It is very expensive to send explorers into space, particularly human ones. Robotic spacecraft can accomplish more for less money, but they lack the glamour of human explorers. Machines do not give television interviews from space or get ticker tape parades when they come back. Astronauts do. Human explorers inspire young people to be astronauts and encourage voters and politicians to keep funding space travel. NASA knows that machines simply do not reap the same public relations benefits as human astronauts. However, due to significant outcry from both the public and the scientific community over the Hubble telescope decision, NASA administrators agreed to postpone a final decision until after a commission of space scientists submitted a report proposing other ways to prolong the working life of the telescope; the commission's report was expected to be completed in Fall 2004.

Gallup polls show very strong support among Americans for crewed missions into space. This is true despite the accidents that have taken astronaut lives. Soon after the Challenger and Columbia space shuttle disasters the Gallup Organization polled 462 adults about their opinions on manned missions. As shown in Figure 9.7 more than 80 percent of the people asked in each poll thought the manned space shuttle program should continue.

FIGURE 9.7
Public opinion poll on whether the manned space shuttle program should be continued, 1986 and 2003

Gallup also asked whether the United States should concentrate on unmanned missions or also include manned missions. (See Figure 9.8.) In both polls a healthy majority of the respondents expressed support for manned missions. The percentage actually increased from 67 percent in 1986 to 73 percent in 2003. Obviously Americans want human explorers to venture into space.