Move over Mr. Skywalker, there's a new hero in town. In the wake of the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it seems as if the defining trilogy du jour is not George Lucas's tale of galactic rebellion, but Peter Jackson's careful recreation of a beloved fantasy world. And while this may be due to the declining quality of the Star Wars films, it is indicative of a greater trend. We are captivated more by tales of earthly battles and military conquest than by stories of space exploration. Indeed, exploring "infinity and beyond" no longer seems to have the allure that it once did. Perhaps this is because, in our focus on confrontation and conquest, we have overlooked the importance of research into outer space. We now seem to look only at who supports or funds this necessary work.
Current attitudes toward the American space program reflect this situation. A study conducted by the Associated Press found that less then half of the American public supports spending money on space exploration as opposed to domestic programs. Americans are more evenly split on the issue of whether to expand the space program in general, with 48% in favor and 48% against. These numbers are similar to those from the 1960's, before Neil Armstrong landed on the moon in 1969. And with President Bush's announcement two days ago that he intends to expand the space program, space exploration is once again an important topic. Specifically, Bush proposes to increase NASA's budget by $1 billion over the next five years. He wants to build new spacecraft that can reach the moon. Plans call for the establishment of a lunar station to serve as a launching point or way station in a future attempt to send a manned mission to Mars. Bush also wants to fulfill US obligations to complete an international space station.
What the AP poll found, however, is that an individual's reaction to such an ambitious program often depends on whom they were told supported the project. A little more than half of Democrats asked about the "United States'" space exploration plan are opposed to the research. When the space exploration plan is attributed to the "Bush Administration," however, Democrats oppose the plan by a 2:1 margin. Perhaps they feel that a proposal eventually to put a man on Mars is another example of the Texas cowboy and his cronies trying to expand America's imperial might. Perhaps they are afraid that they would find Weapons of Mass Destruction in a cache under the ice of the red planet. But most likely, these inflated numbers just show a reflex against anything proposed by the other guys.
The reflex, however, is a clear example of how petty conflicts can impede worthwhile programs. Research should unequivocally rise above politics. Decisions should be made based on the potential costs and benefits of a program. A viable form of space travel would offer myriad opportunities, and the thrill of exploration cannot be ignored. The costs of diverting funds should be taken into account, as should the potential harms. Perhaps our current military conflict has made spending less palatable to some. The recent accident involving the space shuttle Columbia may have disillusioned others. Still, if Bush's proposal is unsuccessful, it should be for these and other similar reasons. The rejection of a celestial research program based on planetary politics is a tragedy. It is an example of letting our earthly quarrels impede our progress into space.
According to the AP, these earthly conflicts and jealousies affect reactions to the space program in another way. While only 29 percent of those polled said that it was "very important" for the US to lead the Space race, 75 percent of those polled said it was important that we be number one. And that may be the root of the reason we have lost our fascination with space. It is no longer as much of an unknown. It has become yet another arena in which we can assert our superiority. Again, research is seen as being performed for political, not scientific reasons. It seems as if space research no longer represents an opportunity to "boldly go where no man has gone before," but a chance to spite the other side or reassert America's superiority. And it's impossible to make a good trilogy based on those motivations.
