The social critics' reply

The Dimming of Starlight

Chapter 2J

The social critics' reply

In spite of the long list of actual and potential benefits of space, social critics find that the standard case for exploration falls short of its target. For many important space activities do not have the obvious beneficial consequences of weather and communication satellites. Where is the obvious payoff from a probe of Jupiter or Titan, from landing a vehicle on Mars, from scooping a bit of Halley's comet? Few accomplishments of space exploration rank as high as the discoveries made with telescopes in orbit. But how is the information from space astronomy going to put food in children's mouths or a roof over their heads?

In emphasizing the practicality of space technology, the standard case makes intellectual orphans of the very things that bring to exploration an air of mystery and excitement. What it leaves out is the heart of space exploration: our sense of adventure, our urge to explore, our need to satisfy our curiosity. A justification along practical lines fails because it excludes those aspects of the enterprise that ignite the imagination and stir the soul about the conquest of the cosmos.

Many supporters of space exploration would like to argue at this point that scientific knowledge has value in itself, but this only brings us back to the original debate. Is scientific knowledge more valuable than achieving this or that social aim? We have not answered that question yet. Of course, merely a small portion of the space budget is allocated to science (while most of it presumably goes for more obviously practical activities), and since the space budget is not that large to begin with, taking the money away from the heart of space exploration is not going to solve the social problems anyway. Nevertheless many social critics would not accept this reply because the actual sums spent on space science are large, even if they represent a small fraction of the space budget in the U.S. The proposed price tag for the Hubble space telescope alone was around $1.5 billion, and the actual costs have run much higher. That kind of money will not solve all the social problems of the world, but the social critics think that its judicious investment may do a lot of good. Besides, the cost of the International Space Station is likely to rise to about $100 billion, an extraordinary sum by any standards (we will see in Ch. 7 that many space scientists actually oppose the space station).

The Ideological Critics' Reply

Dimming of Starlight

Chapter 2I

NEW ROUND OF OBJECTIONS

The ideological critics' reply

A justification that involves technological and economic growth is not likely to impress ideological critics. Indeed, they see the alleged benefits as causes for concern. For many of these critics, and especially for some influenced by the environmentalist movement, the very idea of space exploration is not only unwise, but also immoral. They are particularly harsh to some of the grandiose proposals for going into outer space to solve pressing terrestrial problems. According to Wendell Berry, for example, the lesson that we should learn from the closing of the earthly frontiers "calls for an authentic series of changes in the human character and community that, if made, will afford us the spiritual resources to live both within our material means and with each other."^[1]

Space exploration, he thinks, tries to outflank the lesson entirely. The space enthusiast – and here Berry has Gerard O'Neill in mind – ignores what is essentially a moral problem (i.e., the changing of human character and community) and offers technological solutions instead. The morality of the space enthusiast is thus both shallow and gullible, for he offers "a solution to moral problems that contemplates no moral change."^[2] Space exploration, to someone like Berry, could only be "a desperate attempt to revitalize the thug morality of the technological specialist, by which we blandly assume that we must do anything whatever that we can do."^[3] According to another critic, Dennis Meadows, "What is needed to solve these problems on earth is different values and institutions – a better attitude towards equity, a loss of the growth ethic.... I would rather work at the problems here."^[4]

At first sight Berry seems to beg the question. According to him, the closing of the earthly frontiers presents a moral problem to which only moral solutions are applicable. Gerard O'Neill and other space enthusiasts ignore the moral problem. Thus, Berry concludes, the space enthusiasts are not only doomed to failure but are also immoral (not just mistaken or unperceptive). But what O'Neill and the others question is precisely whether all the frontiers have in fact closed. And certainly, if those frontiers haven't closed, we have no reason to believe that we face a moral problem. In assuming that the high frontier is not a genuine option, Berry heaps moral blame on the space enthusiasts while begging the issue in question.^[5]

But perhaps there is a more sympathetic reading of Berry's position. What he may have in mind is that the experience of the (partial) closing of the earthly frontiers is enough to show that Western man's approach to nature is inherently unwise, and thus that its extension through space exploration is destined to fail. On what grounds should we trust O'Neill's grandiose plans for gigantic solar power satellites, let alone those for artificial worlds (his space colonies)? Surely projects of such magnitude cannot be made plausible by mere theoretical proposals. How can we be assured that no essential detail has been left out?^[6] The most straightforward way to resolve this issue might be to demonstrate the feasibility of increasingly more complex stages of these projects. O'Neill would have been quite agreeable to this suggestion, but Berry and many other ideological critics would probably resist it. The reason for resisting it is that to undertake such demonstrations we first need a large commitment to space exploration, for the demonstrations require that we build and operate very large structures in space. But given the poor record of big technology, Berry would say, why should we extend it the benefit of the doubt on such a scale?

The ideological critics are thus not impressed by the suggestion that space exploration can help correct some of the excesses and mishaps of technological civilization. Nor are they impressed by the claim that space exploration enables us to appraise better how critical our environmental situation is. Giving credit to space exploration in this regard may call to their minds the case of a drunk who drives his car into a bed of flowers. Should credit go to Detroit for inventing the tow truck that gets the drunk's car out? Such would be the wrong approach to the problem. What we need to do is prevent the situation in the first place. Space is, then, a delusion, for it offers more growth and technology to stop the mess caused by growth and technology. Of course, the more we foul up the world, the more space will look like a necessity. But this is a false technological panacea. It is rather like a pain reliever that keeps the patient from having the operation that will save his life. As Wilson Clark puts it, "[O'Neill] speaks in terms of a ‘first beachhead in space,’ evoking the image of greener grass on yonder hill. Unfortunately, we have little time in which to prevent the elimination of the vegetation altogether."^[7]

The urgency of the situation, as these ideological critics perceive it, makes unwarranted our engaging in any more technological detours. Western man's approach has brought the world to the edge of crisis by marrying technology to the mentality of growth. This ideological criticism touches the heart of space exploration insofar as science is supposed to provide the promissory note that underwrites that marriage in the first place. Once again, the satisfaction of scientific curiosity – at least where "big science” is concerned – may be seen as a disturbance, an interference with nature. The emphasis on beneficial results is only a smoke screen: In the long run only a change of attitude can be beneficial. Anything not in harmony with nature is bound to make us fail. In the eyes of the ideological critics, space exploration amounts to a distraction at a time of crisis – the siren voice that calls us from the cosmos still sings the tune of our doom.

I will offer three comments on this controversy. First, most of the vehemence against O’Neill was caused by his suggestion to build space colonies, some of which would house millions of human beings. The idea that one could build artificial self-sufficient environments on that scale seemed naive and arrogant to his critics. As the many difficulties encountered in trying to create such a closed environment in Biosphere 2 indicate, we are a long way from knowing enough to attempt anything remotely approaching the ambition of O’Neill’s projects.

Biosphere 2 is a three-acre compound in the Arizona desert originally designed to prepare future space colonists by having them live sealed off from the rest of the world in a self-contained environment for long periods of time. The first attempt failed: crops were poor, oxygen fell to a dangerous level (15%), and there were several violations of the planned isolation. The second attempt was aborted. Eventually the facility was turned over to a team from Columbia University to perform environmental experiments, many of them connected to the ways buildup of CO₂ affects a variety of habitats. Actually, the project still offers much promise, in spite of its initial difficulties.^[8] Indeed, Biosphere 2 may contribute to the realization of O’Neill’s dream some day, but not soon. In the meantime it is clear that the ideological critics’ warnings were not entirely off the mark. A peculiar consequence of the scientific approach to Biosphere 2 is that environmentalists and supporters of exploration have found common ground.

Second, as I mentioned above, new, smaller (football-field size), and cheaper designs of solar power satellites are getting a good deal of attention and several demonstration projects have been proposed. If the experience of building the International Space Station is positive, our new confidence in building large structures in space may suggest solar power from space as a reasonable alternative to traditional power plants for generating electrical energy.

Third, space enthusiasts often present solar power satellites as the main scientific alternative to the energy crisis. But other scientific proposals may serve us just as well, if not better. For example, Roland Winston and others have demonstrated that by keeping light from forming images (non-imaging optics), it is possible to achieve here on Earth temperatures much higher than those on the surface of the sun. Non-imaging optics may also be used to power lasers and even spacecraft. At the moment, most of the applications are in the heating of buildings and the like, but with the advent of the right kind of photovoltaics, it will be possible to transform that energy into electricity.

If that happens we will have a revolution in electrical power plants analogous to that brought about by personal computers in information. Personal computers liberated us from the institutional giant computers of three decades ago. Non-imaging power generators would liberate us from giant power plants -- for a lot less money and at far less risk. Every building would have its own extremely efficient, non-polluting, and independent means of generating all the electrical power (as well as heat and air-conditioning) it needs. Power cables to housing areas would become a thing of the past. Of course, this particular technology may not pan out any better than solar power satellites, but its very possibility should make us beware of making space technology the only scientific alternative.^[ix]

Solar power satellites are not even the only alternative space science and technology suggest. Jerry Kulcinski and John Santarius claim that a deuterium-helium-3 reactor would offer abundant, cheap energy free of radioactive-waste. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen and it is not difficult to get, but there is no helium-3 on our planet. We could mine it on the Moon, though, and, Robert Zubrin adds, we could also scoop up large quantities of it in the atmospheres of Jupiter and the other gas giants of the solar system.[x]

Of course, this proposal comes, as all do, with several ifs attached (if fusion can really be made to work, if we can really mine helium-3, etc.), as do the other proposals to solve our energy problems by going into space.

In the meantime the ideological critics impatiently point to solutions that, they believe, truly get to the heart of our planet’s problems.

---

[1]. Wendell Berry in Space Colonies, Stewart Brand, ed., Penguin Books, 1977, p. 36.

[2]. Ibid.

[3]. Ibid., p. 37.

[4]. Dennis Meadows, Space Colonies, p. 40.

[5]. And then, by all appearances, he piles abuse on top of bad argument.

[6]. Some question, for example, the belief that in just a few years we could build an entire ecosystem from scratch, as would be required in one of O'Neill's space colonies. In addition to that, proponents of the exploitation of the resources of the solar system are often very optimistic about doubtful technologies; for instance, they frequently make references to self-replicating machines. The implausibility of such machines, also called "von Neumann machines," will be discussed in Chapter 8.

[7]. Wilson Clark, Space Colonies, p. 38.

[8]. “Brave New World of Biosphere 2?” Science News, November 16, 1996, Vol. 150, No. 20, pp. 312-313. The relationship with Columbia University ended in 2003.

[ix]. Winston, R., “Nonimaging Optics,” Scientific American, March 1991, pp. 76-81.

[x] The standard fusion reactor design uses a deuterium-tritium reaction, which produces neutrons, which in turn generate radioactive materials in the metal structure of the reactor. See Zubrin, op. cit., particularly pp. 84-90 and 158-163.

Outline of the Case for Space

The Dimming of Starlight

Chapter 2h

Outline of the Case for Space

Let us review the case for space in outline:

SATELLITES:

WEATHER:

Save lives

Help agriculture

Help transportation

SEA:

Find resources

Tell us about environmental impact

LAND:

Find resources

Tell us about environmental impact

COMMUNICATIONS:

Help commerce

Make our lives easier

SPINOFFS:

New technologies

New economic opportunities

FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS:

More of the same, many new things, and all on a much grander scale

So what is wrong with this standard case? Supporters feel that the critics have received more than they had a right to demand – that they are looking a gift horse in the mouth and turning it down after finding his teeth in excellent condition. But lest we be too hasty in dismissing the critics, we should consider whether the spirit of their objections has been met.

Exploration and Future Opportunity

The Dimming of Starlight

Chapter 2G

Exploration and Future Opportunity

In any event, the appraisal of how much space exploration has done for us pales by comparison with the appraisal of how much more it may do in the years to come. The change of perspective is significant: whereas until now we have only tried to reach outer space and survive there for short periods, we will soon be in a position to live in space, industrialize it, and really put it to work for our benefit. Space presumably has two main advantages for industrialization: low gravity and a nearly perfect vacuum. These two advantages combined can bring us a treasure of new materials, including metal alloys, super-crystals, and extremely pure semiconductors and pharmaceuticals.

Consider the technological promise of low gravity ("microgravity" in the jargon of the trade). Under the influence of gravity objects have weight. The denser an object, the heavier it is. When we mix substances of different densities, gravity pulls the heavier to the bottom and leaves the lighter on top. In a similar fashion gravity creates openings between molecules – openings that allow impurities into the mix. Remove gravity and we can mix the substances evenly and without impurities.

The prospects for new technologies dependent on microgravity are said to be very encouraging. One of those technologies is levitation melting, in which molten metals can solidify without the use of a container (further reducing the problem of impurities). By injecting gases into the heated mixtures we can produce alloys that are not possible on Earth. Some of those alloys may have extraordinary properties; we may, for example, produce a form of steel as light as balsa wood. In medicine, the new purification techniques may be valuable in the investigation of new drugs or in the mass production of some drugs that are currently too expensive to manufacture.

Some of these possible new products would have to be manufactured in space, but others could be developed in space and then made on the planet. Once the feasibility and practicality of these products has been demonstrated through space research, earthbound industry would be more willing to get around the obstacles that gravity presents to their manufacture down here. The vacuum of space combines with microgravity to provide further opportunity for this sort of industrial research in metallurgy, thin-film coating, and welding, among others.

I must point out, however, that these exciting possibilities have been proclaimed almost from the beginning of the space program. It is at least worrisome that over forty years later industrialists do not yet seem to be flocking to take advantage of them. Part of the problem may well be that the Space Shuttle, instead of reducing launching costs, which was the main purpose for building it, has increased them dramatically.

If the costs of transportation can be reduced, setting up factories in space may have several advantages. Large structures can be built in space without many of the problems of foundation and support that gravity forces us to solve down on Earth. Without atmosphere, to say nothing of bad weather and pollution, machines can work for extremely long periods of time. And the energy they require can be obtained cleanly and efficiently from the sun.

All the industrial and technological advantages mentioned so far suggest how space exploration may play a major part in solving some of the most urgent problems of the Earth. Our world faces a double jeopardy: increasing demand for energy and dwindling of resources. In trying to obtain more energy we use up even more resources and, to make matters worse, produce greater amounts of pollution, which in turn affects some of our other resources, as well as our health and general well-being. For example, fossil fuels are the usual source of industrial energy. As we use them, we release ever-greater amounts of carbon dioxide (CO₂) into the atmosphere. If the amount of CO₂ continues to increase, some observers fear, the resulting greenhouse effect might raise the temperature of the planet enough to change the weather and melt much of the water now frozen in the polar caps.^[1] In the worst-case scenario, large areas millions of humans inhabit will be flooded out of existence.^[2]

To forestall these dire consequences (which I will discuss in Ch. 4), supporters of exploration have made proposals that range from the building of solar power satellites to the mining of the Moon, the asteroids, and eventually other planets. About thirty years ago, Peter Glaser proposed a solar power satellite to collect sunlight, transform it into electrical energy, and beam that energy down to Earth. In space, sunlight is plentiful and likely to last for billions of years; solar power satellites release no CO₂; and environmental studies indicate that beaming this energy would be less harmful to plant and animal life than the existing alternatives. One solar power satellite the size of Manhattan would provide as much power as ten nuclear power plants without the attendant risks of radioactive leaks and meltdowns.^[3] With advances in photovoltaics (e.g., solar cells) and other fields, a collector about the size of half a football field might be able to produce one megawatt of power. Other space exploration supporters have suggested moving some of the most polluting industries to space. The promise of space exploration is then very enticing: abundant energy and a safer, cleaner environment.

Critics of these proposals have argued that the mining of the enormous quantity of materials required to build such structures would cause major environmental headaches, while the many thousands of flights by giant rockets to haul the materials into orbit might damage the atmosphere and are certain to cost far too much – in the hundreds of billions of dollars, at least for the system as presented to the U.S. Congress in the late 1970s. Congress found the proposal technologically feasible but accepted the criticisms and refused funding.

These criticisms seemed misleading at the time. The late physicist Gerard O'Neill, one of the most vocal proponents of the idea, had said all along that most of the required materials (e.g., aluminum, oxygen, and silicon) could be rather easily extracted from the Moon, placed in lunar orbit and processed there.^[4] The gravity pull of the Moon is only one sixth that of Earth, and thus the materials could be shot into lunar orbit, at great savings of energy and money, by what O'Neill called "mass drivers": long superconducting rails that use powerful electromagnetic fields to accelerate metal buckets full of lunar soil.

This project would be the beginning of the eventual colonization of the solar system, for no insurmountable technological barriers would then keep us from the abundant resources available in the asteroids, nor from building large habitats in space (Figure 2.3). To paraphrase O'Neill, the closing of the Earthly frontiers would be compensated for by the opening of the “high frontier” to the needs and hopes of humankind.

Whether projects of such magnitude are truly feasible in the next few decades remains a matter of controversy, while the enthusiasm for building O’Neill’s cities in the Lagrangian points between our planet and the Moon seems to have dissipated[5]. A sobering sense of reality developed in the late 1980s when people realized that the Shuttle would never be the transportation system that O’Neill had assumed. Instead of fifty inexpensive flights a year, we were lucky to get five, and at astronomical costs (pun intended). This was no system for colonizing and mining the Moon. More recent proposals for solar power satellites suggest much smaller projects, though still large, for considerably less money, even though all materials would come from Earth.^[6]

To summarize, from the supporters of exploration we get an impression of great accomplishments in the past and even greater possibilities in the future. Their case, which by now is pretty much standard in the pro-exploration literature, seems quite impressive. It points out to social critics that space exploration reduces human misery and improves life on Earth. It tells ideological critics that space technology helps in controlling pollution and in monitoring the environment as a whole; and to both it promises that the new coming golden age of space exploration will do much to solve some of our most serious problems.

---

[1]. Satellites may prove crucial in monitoring the effect on the polar caps of the average global temperature rise.

[2]. Of course the change in weather may also be beneficial to some areas. A warm Siberia, for example, may become one of the largest gardens of the world.

[3]. For details see Gerard O'Neill's The High Frontier, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1982 (2nd edition). See also T. Heppenheimer, Colonies in Space, Stackpole Books, 1977.

[4]. Ibid.

[5] These are points where the gravitational pulls of the Earth and the Moon on a body balance with the centrifugal force – with a zero net force. A city placed in one of them would be in a stable orbit and would not require frequent corrections in its motion.

[6]. Feingold, Harvey et al, “Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look at Generating Solar Power in Space for Use on Earth,” Rpt, SAIC-97/1005, 4 April 1997.

Some Reservations about the Economic Case

The Dimming of Starlight

Chapter 2f

Some Reservations about the Economic Case

The enthusiasm for the economic case has waned since the Golden Age of exploration, in great part because the Space Shuttle makes it too expensive to place things in orbit. It has been said that if the alchemist dream of the “philosopher’s stone” (to turn lead into gold) could be realized simply by taking the lead aboard the Shuttle, it would cost more than just buying the gold!

To make matters worse, the Shuttle has not been exactly a model of reliability. After the Challenger blew up in 1986, the U.S. began to use rockets regularly again. The Russian, European, Japanese, and Chinese space agencies of course use rockets also[1], but although rockets are cheaper than the Shuttle, they are still expensive ($10,000 per kilogram, as of 1995).[2] One of the main disappointments of the Space Shuttle is that it had been billed as the inexpensive option because it was partially reusable. Eventually we might be able to build cheap and reliable space vehicles, but the gap between promise and performance during the last 25 years does not encourage much optimism, although perhaps the successful sub-orbital flights of inexpensive privately built craft will usher in a new era in space.

Even during the Golden Age, however, these economic studies might have been too optimistic. Some of them were based on assumptions about the general relationship between R&D and economic growth, with the expenditures for space technology plugged in – assumptions not universally accepted by economists. And studies that try to account for the specific influence of space technology on a wide collection of industries must surmount serious difficulties. The first difficulty is that knowledge is the most common byproduct of space exploration. It is difficult to quantify knowledge, and even more difficult to trace precisely how it affects the economy as a whole. A few examples of such effects can be given here and there, but a comprehensive account is a great challenge.^[3]

The second difficulty is that space hardware’s effects on the economy are hard to trace because there is often a considerable lag between invention and assimilation, as it happened in the cases of television and penicillin. Moreover, the invention may undergo a series of transformations that are influenced by many factors, including other inventions from completely different fields, or the presence of special social and economic conditions. Catalytic converters to reduce automobile pollution, for example, depended for their acceptance on strong environmental activism in North America. In response to this activism, governments came to support the development of unleaded gasoline and passed laws against engines that used leaded gasoline. It also made automobiles more expensive. In many poor countries of the Third World, where the economic conditions are harsher, catalytic converters are a rarity.

Separating all these factors and settling all these issues is necessary before one can offer truly solid numbers to support the contention that space is a better investment than others that society may contemplate. Thus, in spite of all the money figures thrown around, with a few important exceptions such as telecommunications and navigation, the economic case is mainly qualitative,^[iv] even if some find it very suggestive.

However faulty the econometric and comparative studies may be, the space enthusiasts can find solace in the realization that once an aspect of space exploration is commercialized, its economic impact may be considerable: in 2001 space commercial revenues worldwide reached about $83 billion.[v] This sum by itself, however, does not reveal the economic growth it spurs in many other industries. For example, the Consumer Electronics Association had projected that by 2009 the wireless technology market (computers, cell phones, etc.) will amount to $500 billion dollars. This technology, of course, would not exist without the Internet and other services provided by satellites. It seems that, after all, the onus is on the social critics to explain why the economic justification of space falls short of the mark.[vi]

---

[1] They are being joined by Brazil and several other countries.

[2] For a spirited discussion of these matters read R. Zubrin, Entering Space: Creating a Spacefaring Civilization, Tarcher/Putnam, 1999, Chapter 2. His source for the cost/kilogram is S. Isakowitz, Space Launch Systems, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1995.

[3]. Holman discusses this point in detail. NASA acknowledges it also, as can be appreciated in the agency's response to a critique of the Chase Econometrics study by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). In Holman and Suranyi-Unger's words, "NASA simply stated that the GAO results showed that because empirical measurements in economics is an inexact science, ranges rather than absolute magnitudes are important. (My emphasis.) That is how NASA justified its claim that the GAO findings [that the NASA R&D rate of return was about 25 to 28 percent, instead of the 43 percent claimed by the Chase Econometrics study] in fact, reinforced the results of the Chase Study." op. cit.

[iv]. A variety of authors have challenged the notion that space research stimulated the economy. A book of some fame in this respect was Amitai Etizioni's The Moon-Doggle, Domestic and International Implications of the Space Race, Garden City, 1964.

[v] G. Genta and M. Rycroft, Space, the Final Frontier? Op.cit., p. 26. The amount in question is about ten times the budget for NASA.

[vi] Reported by Caron Alarab, “Gotta Have It,” Detroit Free Press, August 25, 2005.

Space Technology and Economic Expansion

The Dimming of Starlight

Chapter 2E

Space Technology and Economic Expansion

One of the most important aspects of space exploration, according to its supporters, is that the drive into space drives technology as well. This should be expected, they say, since in order to meet new challenges and solve new problems, we have to stretch our ingenuity well beyond the bounds of the ordinary. The result is beneficial because many of these advances in technology can be applied here on Earth. That is, from the space program we derive valuable “spinoffs.” These come mainly in two categories. Some technological innovations are entirely extensions or applications of technology developed for space. And some others are developed independently of the space program but become well known, refined, or simply marketable because their use in the space program gives them a great boost.

The effectiveness of space technology in producing spinoffs cannot be determined precisely. One reason is that highly specialized technology may take a long time, often decades, getting to the marketplace. Penicillin and television, for example, were ignored for years before somebody decided to take advantage of them. Nevertheless there appear to be direct links to the technology of space (particularly in the 1960s) in the development of new materials and techniques for aerodynamics, propulsion, electronics, and other fields. The developments in turn affected our systems of transportation, transmission of energy, and temperature control.

Even esoteric space technology often finds a home in the wider industrial world. The liquid hydrogen used as fuel in the Saturn V (the rocket that took men to the moon) had to be kept at the incredibly cold temperature of minus 423 degrees Fahrenheit. The fuel-tank insulation, which consisted of a one-inch thickness of polyurethane foam reinforced in three dimensions with fiberglass threads, is now applied in ships that transport liquefied natural gas. The conversion of the gas to liquid reduces its volume more than 600 times, which makes it a far more economical and manageable cargo. But liquefied natural gas must be contained at about minus 260 degrees Fahrenheit to prevent loss by boil-off, a task Moon technology has made safer and more efficient. Indeed there are many applications of insulating materials designed for NASA. One such spinoff, Therm-O-Trol, provided the insulation required to keep the oil in the Alaska pipeline flowing at 180 degrees Fahrenheit. And Nunsun, a thin film of reflective insulation developed to protect spacecraft from intense solar radiation, can now be sprayed on the windows of buildings to reduce the cost of cooling.

Examples of applications and their influence in industry and daily life multiply easily.^[1] In the first two decades of exploration, space supporters pointed to that influence, whether direct or indirect, in thousands of products, from fire-fighting equipment and freeze-dried foods to hand-held calculators and digital watches. Indeed, the whole trend towards miniaturization, it is said, was spurred largely by the technical needs of the space program.^[2]

Today, of course, the list of products, and of the fields in which we can find them, is much longer. Here is a small sample of applications and their origins in the space program.

In health and medicine:

Non-surgical breast biopsy system (Space telescope technology: digital imaging)

Ocular screening (NASA Image Processing), a photo-refractor that analyzes retinal reflexes

Ultrasound skin damage assessment (NASA ultrasound technology)

Voice-controlled wheelchair (NASA teleoperator and robot technology)

Programmable Pacemaker (NASA computer technology)

In public safety:

Emergency response robot used in hazardous duties (NASA robotics)

Pen-sized personal alarm system (space telemetry technology)

Self-righting life raft (Apollo program)

In transportation:

Advanced lubricants for railroad tracks, prevention of corrosion in electric plants, etc. (Space Shuttle Mobile Launcher Platform)

Flywheel energy storage system, with 50 times more capacity than a standard car battery (NASA sponsored studies)

Studless winter tires (made from Viking Lander parachute materials)

Improved aircraft wing and engine designs (from multiple NASA technologies)

These are examples chosen almost at random from among many thousands. One could compile similar lists of applications in other fields. Manufacturing, for example, benefits from NASA developments in magnetic liquids, new welding technology, and microlasers. An interesting spin-off is a system of magnetic bearings that allows motion of parts without friction or wear. This technology came from the Space Shuttle and is used for refining oil, building natural gas pipelines and operating machine tools.

I have mentioned the origins of these spinoffs because the popular literature is full of questionable examples and some of the claims about the extent of space technology's influence on the development of specific products are disputed from time to time. Among the most notorious cases are Teflon, Velcro, ballpoint pens and cardiac pacemakers. Carl Sagan recalls meeting the inventor of the cardiac pacemaker, “Who himself nearly had a coronary accident describing the injustice of what he perceived as NASA taking credit for his device.”^[3]

Nonetheless, it seems that, as we saw above, space technology has improved considerably the quality of life for many people: here by saving it; there by making it more bearable;[4] elsewhere by creating copious new opportunities in jobs and industries, or innovative products that enhance our work and our leisure. The enthusiasts suggest that much of this change is for the better, and that when people acknowledge the pervasive role of space exploration in their lives, they will realize that they cannot do without it.[5]

---

[1]. Literature describing actual and possible applications of space technology is easily available at any bookstore. Apart from this popular literature, the reader may wish to consult NASA's periodic summaries, appropriately entitled Spinoff (many of the examples given in this chapter are taken from Spinoff 1979 and Spinoff 1984). Of almost historical interest in the forecasting of the industrial benefits of space exploration is Neil P. Ruzic's The Case for Going to the Moon, Putnam's Sons, 1965.

[2]. Although, as Jerome Schnee points out, the contributions of defense R&D were also very large. See his "The Economic Impacts of the U.S. Space Program," in T. Stephen Cheston, Charles M. Chafer, and Sallie Birket Chafer, Social Sciences and Space Exploration, NASA EP-192, 1984, p. 24.

[3]. Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space, Random House, 1994, p. 272.

[4] For medical advances produced by the early exploration of space see T.E. Bell, “Technologies for the Handicapped and the Aged,” NASA Technology Transfer Division, 1979, a report for the Select Committee on Aging and the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.

[5] For an account of the accomplishments of the American space program during its golden age, see F.W. Anderson, Jr., Orders of Magnitude: A History of NACA and NASA, 1915-1976, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 1976.

The Standard Case for Exploration

THE DIMMING OF STARLIGHT

CH. 2d

THE STANDARD CASE FOR EXPLORATION

The supporters of space exploration do not feel overwhelmed by the challenge. They believe their case is straightforward: space exploration can contribute greatly to the reduction of human misery, the improvement of human life, and the preservation of the environment. In fact, it already has. To appreciate the actual and potential contributions of space, we need only pay attention to the function of satellites, the indirect consequences of space technology (spinoffs), and the opportunities that future exploration may create for humankind. And once we gain an appreciation of these contributions, we will have an answer to the social and ideological critics.

Satellites

Weather satellites have extended the range and accuracy of weather forecasts appreciably. The reason is simple: from space we see weather patterns that otherwise could be discerned only with great difficulty and never very accurately. Now we see them and track them.^[1] Weather satellites warn us about freezes, hurricanes and tornados, thereby saving crops, buildings, and human lives.[2] And when disaster nonetheless strikes, communication satellites enable us to come to the assistance of those in peril or in need of relief.

Apart from this reduction in human misery, the drastic improvement in weather forecasting techniques is of great help to farmers in planting and harvesting, with obvious beneficial consequences for agriculture and the food supply of a hungry world.

Land satellites (LANDSATs and their descendants) are a useful complement to weather satellites. LANDSATs survey the Earth's resources from space, identifying minerals or types of vegetation by their responses to infrared, visible, or ultraviolet radiation. Often, a computer assigns contrasting colors (e.g., gold and purple) to slightly different frequencies (e.g., the frequencies of two closely related browns) that reflect from different materials (e.g., a mineral ore and dry vegetation). This use of “false color” and other computer tricks of remote sensing permit practically instant visualizations of the distribution of natural resources.

We can observe these patterns even on cloudy days, for we can take pictures at wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum not absorbed by water droplets. So we can reliably use LANDSATS to look for oil and other mineral deposits; make crop inventories; and carry out surveys of ice in lakes and of snow accumulation on mountains, thus helping to determine the likelihood of flooding. We can also measure the availability of water where it depends on snow melt; estimate forest land; and determine the degree to which urban sprawl affects the surrounding environment. And finally, although the list could go on, we can often monitor the spread of pollution.

Since we can make estimates of the distribution of many resources, and of the productivity of many enterprises, we can see how space technology may be of great assistance in the fight against poverty. Remote sensing technology may also enable us to perform the inventories needed for the preservation of agriculture, wild lands, and wildlife. It seems then that land, weather, and communication satellites begin to answer the concerns of the social and ideological critics of space exploration (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2).

We must recall also the revolution in communications made possible by satellites. We now transmit information and contact people in ways that were unattainable prior to the launching of Sputnik I in 1957. Today, in the comfort of our living rooms, we can watch live on television a sporting or cultural event that is taking place on another continent, or have a telephone conversation with a friend at the opposite side of the world. The significance of these changes becomes evident when an emergency prompts our call to the other side of the world, or when the satellites are used, as in India, to bring education to large rural areas for the first time. And do not forget that the global Internet would not be possible without communication satellites. All these changes in people's daily lives are mirrored by improvements in the practice of commerce, the gathering of news, and the relief of disaster.

The Space Shuttle, as well as other piloted vehicles and the various kinds of space stations, complement these functions of satellites. A 1994 Space Shuttle flight yielded preliminary radar measurements of hitherto undiscovered structures around Angkor Wat, a famous archeological site in Cambodia. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory then developed a sophisticated airborne radar system that allowed archeologist Elizabeth Moore and her team to discover four to six more temples and gain a better picture of the massive waterworks that were an integral part of the complex.^[3]

Few of these accomplishments were likely through more conventional methods. Surveys from the ground could not compete with a perspective that permitted us to detect, at a glance, large patterns and to take inventories of minerals and vegetation. It might be imagined that perhaps airplanes could have flown high above the clouds to do a similar job for less money. But whereas satellites give us pictures of exactly the same spot time and again so we can make comparisons, the flight path of airplanes is never that precise. Nor are airplanes as reliable – they are subject to mechanical problems and the vagaries of weather. Moreover, it would have taken a fleet of thousands of airplanes to do what a single satellite does in passing over the Earth at its very high orbital speed. Using airplanes might have well cost us hundreds of times more and the results would have been vastly inferior.^[4] Today we are beginning to use new generations of light planes and other flying devices to obtain more specific local information, normally interpreted in the larger context provided by satellite data.

In any event, many crucial jobs can be done only from space. For a variety of reasons, many weather and communication satellites must be placed exactly over the same spot on the Earth. For example, a satellite fixed overhead is extremely convenient, since we can then transmit and receive from it at any time. As the Earth rotates, the satellite must rotate with it so as never to lag or move ahead. Only a special orbit, called a geosynchronous orbit, 36,000 Km. (22,000 miles) over the equator satisfies these requirements.

Of course, this is only the beginning. New generations of satellites will do far more. Future LANDSATs, for instance, may be helpful in estimating agricultural yields (which would be an important refinement over the presently available crop estimates), once we have a better knowledge of the connections between cloudiness, rainfall, and soil moisture. Merely two decades ago, the very idea of cellular telephones, to say nothing of tracking devices for trucks and mountain climbers, had an aura of science fiction. Now we can expect that future SEASATs and navigation satellites will not only survey the oceans, but also contribute to the safety of travelers and cargo.^[v] All in all, new kinds of satellites will improve in new ways the lives of billions and billions of human beings.

---

[1]. Until 1980 weather satellites led to significant improvements in weather predictions mostly in the southern hemisphere and over the oceans, not in the advanced, populated areas of the northern hemisphere. The reason is that temperature and pressure at different altitudes could be better determined by other technological means. And improvement in the computer weather programs in 1980 led to new and more powerful forecasting techniques in which satellites played a crucial role. Future generations of weather satellites will provide more refined measurements.

[2] The number of hurricane casualties shows a steady decline. In the 1900 Galveston Hurricane, for example, about 8,000 people died. Death tolls around 1,000 resulted from hurricanes in 1919 and 1926. It was not uncommon to see even higher casualties in the first part of the 20^th Century. By the 1960s and 70s, the numbers were more typically in the low hundreds. Today they are in the dozens.

The one disastrous exception is hurricane Katrina, which may have caused close to a thousand deaths in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Here we have a case, however, in which the warning was delivered but not properly heeded. In many cases, it seems, the reduction of casualties over the last two decades made some people overconfident, and many refused to leave the area. To make matters worse, the evacuation plan for the city of New Orleans was not followed, even though a run-through a year earlier showed that more than 100,000 people were likely to stay in the city unless city and school buses (and probably additional transportation from the state of Louisiana) were pressed into service. For over twenty years it was known that a hurricane that strong would destroy the levees and flood the city. But no one took steps to prevent the calamity. A tragedy of errors turned a serious but still manageable problem into probably the worst natural disaster in the history of the country. One shudders at the thought of what would have happened without the satellite warnings. Incidentally, military and civilian satellites, including Ikonos, a private imaging satellite operated by Space Imaging, are already giving us a reliable assessment of the damage.

[3]. Science News, Vol. 153, February 21, 1998, p. 117.

[4]. For details see The Impact of Space Science on Mankind, op. cit., p. 82. For a summary of the benefits derived from Landsats and environmental satellites, see the same work, pp. 67- 111. In it there are also discussions of communication and weather satellites.

5. Satellites may also be used to survey the resources of the oceans and to carry out sophisticated measurements of temperature and height of the ocean waters.