Space Station Is Essential To More Manned Exploration

The United States has, in one forum or another, been debating whether to create a permanent human outpost in orbit several hundred miles above Earth--a space station--for more than three decades. The debate has become more intense since President Ronald Reagan, in January 1984, directed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to develop such a facility, and peaked in the last year as a consensus among scientists developed that the station NASA was proposing should not be built. Now, under pressure from both the White House and Congress, the space agency has come forward with a "restructured" station proposal. Up-Or-Down Decision The question remains: Is this space station worth building? I think it is, if it is outfitted properly. Moreover, I believe that the only sustainable reason for developing a space station--that is, as part of the process of human exploration of the solar system--has finally been put forth. This means that this year's up-or-down decision on moving forward with the station program can finally be made with all cards on the table. A space station is not an end in itself. It must be justified in terms of the broader goals it serves. Most of the debate over the past 30 years has centered on a space station's role as a general-purpose research laboratory in space. But the experience of the same 30 years demonstrates that there are not yet utilitarian roles for humans in orbit around Earth that justify the costs of putting and keeping them there. The expected payoffs from using the space station in terms of research leading to scientific, technological, or economic benefits are not sufficient to justify the investment in developing the station, given alternative uses of the funds required. In essence, the argument in favor of developing a multipurpose research laboratory in space has failed. Another justification for the station is intangible in character. Vice President Dan Quayle, chairman of the National Space Council, recently wrote that "the most compelling reason for building a space station is that it is a necessary step to further American leadership in exploring space." The use of the civilian space program to symbolize the status of the United States as a global superpower has been a constant of U.S. national policy since the Kennedy administration, and few can deny that U.S. space successes have been a source of national prestige and pride. But leadership comes from doing something worthwhile, not just carrying out a purposeless demonstration of technological and organizational capability. Saying that the space station is essential to U.S. space leadership begs the question: What is the goal toward which the U.S. is exercising its leadership? To Mars And Beyond That goal is, in fact, clearly stated in national space policy as put forth by the Bush administration (and the Reagan administration before it). It is "to extend human activity and presence beyond Earth orbit into the solar system." This was made more concrete by George Bush on the 20th anniversary of the first moon landing, July 20, 1989, when he proposed a return to the moon, "this time to stay," and then human missions to Mars "and beyond." In a fundamental sense, the debate over whether the U.S. should build a space station is a subset of the debate over whether the country should be a leader in sending humans to Mars on a time scale relevant to those now alive. There are no cost-benefit calculations or other analytical means for demonstrating that this is an appropriate path to follow; as the vice president has said, "opening up the frontiers of space is not only in America's interest, it is America's destiny." This kind of rhetoric may not be easily accepted by readers of The Scientist, but it represents an aspiration of many in this country and around the world. Indeed, sending humans to Mars ought to be an undertaking of many nations, not just the U.S. The space station program, as an international partnership among the U.S., Europe, Japan, and Canada, is a testbed for future cooperation in solar system exploration. What is undeniable is that, if the U.S. wants to begin to plan to send people to Mars, a space station is necessary. There is no controversy over this point in the scientific community. The Space Studies Board of the National Academy of Sciences "strongly endorses the position that a space-based laboratory is required to study the physiological consequences of long-term space flight." In a recent report, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy argued that the justification for going ahead with the space station program rested "squarely and solely ... on its role, from a scientific point of view, in supporting manned space exploration." The OSTP report went on to state that "we are convinced that the ultimate, compelling argument for the space station ... is that of a first step in the great adventure that will take mankind away from the home planet for extended periods--and as the true beginning of manned exploration of the solar system and beyond." If there is no intent to embark upon a program of human exploration beyond the Earth-moon system sometime in the first two decades of the 21st century, the U.S. does not need to begin developing a space station in the 1990s. But if eventual human planetary exploration is a strategic vision shaping current choices, then moving ahead with the station program now makes eminent sense. What must be assured is that the right station is developed, one that facilitates the life sciences research needed to test man's long-term space capability. As the Space Studies Board noted in its recent report, NASA's restructured station does not yet meet basic life sciences research requirements. Only if NASA's plans are modified to show how it will do so (and most who are familiar with basics of the current design believe that they can be adjusted without another round of major changes) does the station deserve the support of the scientific community, not only as scientists, but as humans choosing to continue the curiosity-driven exploration that is one of the species' dominant characteristics. John Logsdon is head of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

Space Station Is Essential To More Manned Exploration

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of