With space shuttle Atlantis having successfully reached orbit as the first of six planned shuttle flights this year, it seems a good time to return to my debate with Mark Hempsell about whether the UK should invest in the International Space Station. Following the first parts of our debate here and here, I asked Mark to elaborate on the type of science that could be done on the space station. Here’s what he wrote:
To give a taste of the sort of science the UK is already missing out on
consider the programme conducted on Mir and Space Shuttle and
continuing on the ISS which is studying calcium loss in the bones which has already
contributed a lot to medical understanding of osteoporosis and to
exploring preventive measures and cures. Or consider the tissue culture working
contributing to growing replacement organs of transplants with the
patent’s own DNA using cloning techniques. Or consider the research into protein
crystals (over 1000 samples are being prepared on the ISS) that
supports the drug development by the pharmaceutical industry. Or consider the
growth of ultra pure semiconductor crystals which may significantly advance
microelectronics. And, while no single area of research justifies
involvement in microgravity research, when one considers there are
hundreds of subject areas with a potential interest in using space, leading to
many thousands of individual research projects, the case is overwhelming.
And although in the UK there is a group who belittle this science as in
some way second rate, I think if you suffered from Osteoporosis or were
awaiting a life saving transplant (with resulting lottery of whether a
suitable donor will die at the right time) your perspective of what is
important science research may differ. The truth is Britain is staying
out of all the space research that will actually have an impact on peoples’
everyday lives, which, by the way, is completely contrary to the UK
Government slogan “putting space to work” i.e. only spending money
where there is a proven direct economic return which cannot be said of
astronomy and space physics.
Will Gater's science writing and astronomy on February 7, 2008
Successful lift-off for Space Shuttle Atlantis…
The Space Shuttle Atlantis has finally lifted off from Cape Canaveral to begin its 11-day mission to the International Space Station (ISS). The launch of STS-122 has been delayed since December with fuel sensor malfunctions causing trouble for NASA. In…
Adam Primus on February 7, 2008
Never underestimate the power of of publicity. The impact on the public psyche of a Briton on a Space Station that the British helped fund could have very real benefits. People in space capture the public imagination & fires enthusiasm in a way that bacteria in space never could, & with the politicians holding the purse strings, having the public on your side must be an asset.
Vagueofgodalming on February 7, 2008
Surely what matters for the treatment of osteoporosis is that the research is done, not who does it. British people need not miss out because foreigners do that particular piece of work.
This is about the UK being a good international citizen, and I’m not sure that inventing a project is the best way to improve that.
Adam Primus on February 8, 2008
Would it really be “Inventing a project”? The HEM radiation shielding would seem to be an essential development in manned space flight & on it’s own would be worth the effort, particularly if we are serious about the mooted Mars Mission. (We are also beginning a new Sunspot Cycle).
In the long run I still feel that British involvement would raise the profile & the greatest benefit would be the public impact of such a collaboration. I think he higher the public profile, the better the chances of funding.
Doug Ellison on February 8, 2008
“Britain is staying
out of all the space research that will actually have an impact on peoples’
everyday lives”
Nonsense, we’re involved in Meteosat, Envisat, the DMC constellation etc. We don’t have enough cash to go around the needs of astronomy, physics and so on already. To suggest that we could ever find enough cash to be involved in manned spaceflight ( or that, if such an ammount of money, building a dorm for the ISS is the best way to spend it ) just seems, to me, to be madness. I’m not against manned spaceflight- but I am against the UK getting involved in it with our current ESA contribution.
Dave Lermit on February 9, 2008
This is an old argument Robots v Humans in space.
I seem to remember Clarke arguing the case for the latter and Lunar observatories…
Budget sez “Robots in Space” is cheaper (when they work!) Politics say “Humans in Space” is inspirational.
Without inspiration the Great British Public will continue to regard Space as something we don’t do and the Government will continue to cut back on Space Science even the Robotic Bits! vide STFC and the Gemini Telescope.
Tsiolkovski (Hawking) was right and if we don’t get out of the cradle real soon… we never will. And then we can kiss goodbye to a Technological Future. With No Robots. Or Space Science. Or Physics.
That being said the HEM is Pie in the Sky. We would be better collaborating with the Russians/ESA on ACTS (new Soyuz replacement) and their proposed Next Generation Orbital Lunar Launch Facility. Especially if a third (fourth) iteration Russian LSS and whatnot can support us to on the long long missions to trans Lunar Space and the NEOs. Barring a Icy Miracle from LCROSS or Chandrayaan-1 or Chang’e or Kaguya that’s where we will find the next waterhole.
Mars is at the bottom of another Gravity Well.