Space Is for Science

SOME of the greatest advances of human knowledge in the present age have occurred in the space sciences. There are those wonderful pictures of the planets returned to us by robot spacecraft, resolving what had been fuzzy blobs or mere points of light in the telescopes of just 50 years ago into landscapes and skies, mountains and rock-strewn plains, volcanoes and storm systems. Just as sensational, and perhaps more important in the long run, have been the results returned from robot telescopes in orbit or in the stratosphere, observing the weird and mysterious objects that inhabit extrasolar space, or peering back to the remotest regions of the universe in search of understanding about our ultimate origins. Practically all of this progress has been paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, the funds being disbursed through NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2007, released February 6, was therefore scrutinized with keen interest by space scientists and interested citizens. The overall reaction has been shock and dismay. The cries of pain can be heard on space-science websites like Universe Today and in astronomy-hobbyist print magazines like Sky & Telescope. Rick Fienberg, editor-in-chief of the latter, sums it up in his June editorial: “Astronomers’worst fears about President Bush’s ‘Vision for Space Exploration’ are coming true. . . . Faced with the skyrocketing cost of returning the shuttle to flight and completing the international space station, NASA is cutting billions of dollars from science.”

About the Author

John Derbyshire

Mr. Derbyshire is a former contributing editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

SOME of the greatest advances of human knowledge in the present age have occurred in the space sciences. There are those wonderful pictures of the planets returned to us by robot spacecraft, resolving what had been fuzzy blobs or mere points of light in the telescopes of just 50 years ago into landscapes and skies, mountains and rock-strewn plains, volcanoes and storm systems. Just as sensational, and perhaps more important in the long run, have been the results returned from robot telescopes in orbit or in the stratosphere, observing the weird and mysterious objects that inhabit extrasolar space, or peering back to the remotest regions of the universe in search of understanding about our ultimate origins. Practically all of this progress has been paid for by the U.S. taxpayer, the funds being disbursed through NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

NASA’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2007, released February 6, was therefore scrutinized with keen interest by space scientists and interested citizens. The overall reaction has been shock and dismay. The cries of pain can be heard on space-science websites like Universe Today and in astronomy-hobbyist print magazines like Sky & Telescope. Rick Fienberg, editor-in-chief of the latter, sums it up in his June editorial: “Astronomers’worst fears about President Bush’s ‘Vision for Space Exploration’ are coming true. . . . Faced with the skyrocketing cost of returning the shuttle to flight and completing the international space station, NASA is cutting billions of dollars from science.”