What is it about sending people into space?

By sending living beings like ourselves into space we can come closer to the shear thrill and danger of travelling to a far-away place

Steve Connor
Monday 27 May 2013 18:52 BST
Comments
(Getty Images)

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

To boldly go where no man has gone before. It is the most famously sexist split infinitive in the English language and yet it sums up neatly why we still need to have a human programme of space exploration.

Of course, the only “manned” space missions we currently have are focussed on sending astronauts to and from the International Space Station, a floating palace of technological wizardry weighing 3,600 tonnes and whizzing 28,000km an hour around the Earth at an altitude of more than 400km.

Any astronaut staying up there will see approximately 16 sunsets and sunrises in every 24-hour period. Whatever can be said about this kind of orbital space flight, it is not about boldly going where no-one had gone before – unless you include records for making circular journeys around Earth.

So what is it about sending men and women into space? Why do we need to do it? As Jeremy Paxman so succinctly put it when interviewing Major Tim Peake last week; what’s the point?

Lord Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal, has explained his own schizophrenic attitude to human space exploration. As a scientist and practical man he is against on the grounds that it is a waste of money – you can get more bang for your bucks by sending probes and intelligent robots into space.

But as a human being, he is in favour. By sending living, breathing sentient beings like ourselves into space we can come closer to the shear thrill and danger of travelling to a far-away place we can only imagine.

Inspiring the next generation of scientists and engineers, as well as authors, artists and musicians, is one of the principle justifications for spending the colossal sums of money on what some – including Lord Rees – have called “that huge turkey in the sky”.

But the International Space Station need not be the final destination for astronauts. What is really needed now is a programme of human space exploration that goes beyond simply orbiting the Earth. We need to set our sights on the Moon and Mars, or possibly visiting a nearby asteroid.

Of course it will always be possible to argue that the money is better spent on Earth. It is easy to see why some believe that hospitals and schools, or feeding the hungry, should have a higher priority.

Yet, space can unify as well as inspire, as astronaut Chris Hadfield has demonstrated. A truly unified world will be a better and safer place, and space exploration could help us to boldly go where humankind has not been before.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in