Writer's Block: Fly me to the moon
Oct. 15th, 2010 01:56 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
badninja[Error: unknown template qotd]
Short answer: yes. While I appreciate the science of it greatly, I think it's most important for morale. There's a reason that space is called the next frontier/the final frontier. Did you know that we're on the edge of interstellar travel? There's multiple probes that are making their ways out of our solar system. This is the Voyager Program. This is not the goal of the program (the goal is to map the shape of the boundary between us and interstellar space, as well confirm what we believe to be the elements of it), but it is a possible outcome. This is hardly even close to our largest program, either! There are so many things going on outside of our planet, and we rarely hear of it because it's not 'sensational'. But it's happening, and every day we grow stronger from it.
I know that a common answer is that right now we need to apply our money to other things that are pertinent to making us stronger on Earth. I think the question that is being asked ignores almost everything that's at hand. Typically it's watered down to 'are humans more/less important than science'? First off, that's not a fair way to put it. The fact this question even exists shows that many of us will always look to the skies as a part of becoming stronger. Not only that, but what we find out there teaches us more about what we should be doing with our planet right now.
This question also assumes that to initiate the space program, everything that is a part of it takes place in space. That could not be farther from the truth! We have many programs and we can observe so much from our telescopes as they get bigger and bigger. We can hypothesize, we can recreate events, we can do so much while never leaving our planet. The space program is not limited to what we launch into space and I think that point needs to be made. If you expand the definition it starts to include many other ideas. For example, one day a long time ago, a committee decided to build a large telescope in California. In fact, they aimed for it to be the largest telescope in the world. But as other telescopes were built, their plan for this telescope became obsolete before it was even past the first stages of building. This happened in other countries too, and what happened is that everyone decided to join together to fund one project. This project is even working out. It's amazing what happens when humans want to join together for the sake of expanded knowledge and expanded horizons.
The funds that were applied to space exploration are applying more often to what we do here. We're not just looking to the skies anymore. We're looking at what's around us. If we weren't, the Large Hadron Collider would not exist.
There are actually many arguments that are made that we don't apply enough funds to the space program. It's been made to look otherwise in recent years because it's easy to point to it as something that can be blamed for what's wrong with the planet right now. But it's suffering just as much as anything else. Many projects that you hear about were launched in the 70s. While we are still receiving communications from many of them, the technology is critically obsolete or in risk of not being compatible with us any longer.
For one, as we come closer and closer to interstellar travel, we're going to need keep in mind the fact that the center of our galaxy is a black hole - something that is hypothesized to be what the center of all galaxies are like. We're going to need to know that as we get closer and closer to flybys around that area. What would happen if we didn't know? On the other hand, while we are able to observe and collect data on black matter, we don't have enough to launch if we were to have a chance to investigate it physically. There's simply too much risk at the moment. It goes both ways.
I know that the other side of the argument is just as complicated. I recognize the validity of it and I am not saying that we shouldn't apply just as much to saving who and what we have here. But it's not the side I'm talking about today. I'll leave that for someone else.
Short answer: yes. While I appreciate the science of it greatly, I think it's most important for morale. There's a reason that space is called the next frontier/the final frontier. Did you know that we're on the edge of interstellar travel? There's multiple probes that are making their ways out of our solar system. This is the Voyager Program. This is not the goal of the program (the goal is to map the shape of the boundary between us and interstellar space, as well confirm what we believe to be the elements of it), but it is a possible outcome. This is hardly even close to our largest program, either! There are so many things going on outside of our planet, and we rarely hear of it because it's not 'sensational'. But it's happening, and every day we grow stronger from it.
I know that a common answer is that right now we need to apply our money to other things that are pertinent to making us stronger on Earth. I think the question that is being asked ignores almost everything that's at hand. Typically it's watered down to 'are humans more/less important than science'? First off, that's not a fair way to put it. The fact this question even exists shows that many of us will always look to the skies as a part of becoming stronger. Not only that, but what we find out there teaches us more about what we should be doing with our planet right now.
This question also assumes that to initiate the space program, everything that is a part of it takes place in space. That could not be farther from the truth! We have many programs and we can observe so much from our telescopes as they get bigger and bigger. We can hypothesize, we can recreate events, we can do so much while never leaving our planet. The space program is not limited to what we launch into space and I think that point needs to be made. If you expand the definition it starts to include many other ideas. For example, one day a long time ago, a committee decided to build a large telescope in California. In fact, they aimed for it to be the largest telescope in the world. But as other telescopes were built, their plan for this telescope became obsolete before it was even past the first stages of building. This happened in other countries too, and what happened is that everyone decided to join together to fund one project. This project is even working out. It's amazing what happens when humans want to join together for the sake of expanded knowledge and expanded horizons.
The funds that were applied to space exploration are applying more often to what we do here. We're not just looking to the skies anymore. We're looking at what's around us. If we weren't, the Large Hadron Collider would not exist.
There are actually many arguments that are made that we don't apply enough funds to the space program. It's been made to look otherwise in recent years because it's easy to point to it as something that can be blamed for what's wrong with the planet right now. But it's suffering just as much as anything else. Many projects that you hear about were launched in the 70s. While we are still receiving communications from many of them, the technology is critically obsolete or in risk of not being compatible with us any longer.
For one, as we come closer and closer to interstellar travel, we're going to need keep in mind the fact that the center of our galaxy is a black hole - something that is hypothesized to be what the center of all galaxies are like. We're going to need to know that as we get closer and closer to flybys around that area. What would happen if we didn't know? On the other hand, while we are able to observe and collect data on black matter, we don't have enough to launch if we were to have a chance to investigate it physically. There's simply too much risk at the moment. It goes both ways.
I know that the other side of the argument is just as complicated. I recognize the validity of it and I am not saying that we shouldn't apply just as much to saving who and what we have here. But it's not the side I'm talking about today. I'll leave that for someone else.
