To go where no man has gone before; why we do it.

[Padraig18]

Mankind has always pushed the envelope to tread on that where he has never been before. We are driven by a need to understand the great unknown and, in the process, we inevitably come to learn more about ourselves.

Our history books are filled with the tales of the great explorers like Erik the Red, St. Brendan, Columbus, Magellan and Lewis and Clark. Their willingness to risk their lives to map uncharted territory helped shape the world in which we live.

We celebrate their heroics to this day, but for all that we've learned through the centuries there are still as many mysteries as answers to our questions of how the world and the universe were created. As we strive to understand this, we also hope to gain insight into our very existence.

Exploration of the heavens and earth continues to this day. One of the most dramatic missions was the landing Saturday of a robotic rover on the surface of Mars.

'Spirit', as it is known, is the tentacle of man sent by us on a 106-million-mile journey to probe, photograph and transmit data about the Red Planet to earth. Our brilliant scientists believe water at one time may have covered the surface of our celestial neighbor. If proven true, that could also mean that life in some form existed there.

It is not the first or last time a creation of man has landed on the Martian surface. We were there in 1997, failed to land a probe in 1999 and anticipate the arrival of Spirit's robotic twin, Opportunity, to touch down Jan. 24.

The latest mission is costly -- more than $800 million -- and detractors argue that, in a world of hunger, oppression and need, such money could be more wisely spent.

I do not concur with that assessment. What mankind gains from such explorations does far more than satisfy our burning curiosity. The technology we develop that enables humans to control 400-pound rover millions of miles away ultimately is employed to improve life on earth. Such programs allow us to tackle two frontiers -- space and the testing of new technologies. Such programs reaffirm in ourselves that mankind is progressing.

The engineers and scientists at NASA breathed a collective sigh of relief when the first images transmitted by Spirit arrived back on earth. The failed attempt in 1999, in which contact with the Mars Polar Lander was lost just before it was to touch down, was a costly embarrassment to the agency and had critics question the need for future Mars missions.

The tragic death of seven astronauts of the Columbia space shuttle almost a year ago further cast critical eyes on NASA's limitations.

But great explorers have always understood the risks of their ventures and yet remained undaunted. This was proven again on Saturday when Spirit 'phoned home'. Our need to understand worlds besides our own is far too great for us to ignore, and we should continue to explore space.

:)

[zbdent]

1. Nope. It's the gold.

Chicks dig the wealthy and powerful guys.

Most of the Human race's exploration was to get more of what we already had, and find stuff we didn't have.

The Moon, however, was an ego trip, "We were there first!". Probably had a military directive also, although quiet.

[BurtWorm]

2. Unmanned missions are best.

Manned missions make no sense. I'm not impressed by stunts, but I think the return on space exploration, in terms of knowledge, technology transfer and just plain mind-blowing makes it worthwhile. There's no need to send people back to the moon. These robots are perfect for the task.

[Padraig18]

3. Manned missions are 'sexy'.

They build interest in exploration overall. :)

[BurtWorm]

5. But they're too expensive.

And they're anti-democratic. Why should Joe Schmoe get to walk around Mars when the rest of us simply can't. People have tolerated at least the level of funding that made the pictures the Mars Rover took possible, and the fruits of that mission are basically for everybody. You don't have to be a space geek to get a thrill out of looking at such detailed pictures of the Martian desert. I could support sending more such robots out into the near solar system to do work for us. I'd rather not support sending people out there for no really good reason.

[Padraig18]

6. I basically agree with you.

I was just pointing out the practical reason/justification for manned missions. :)

[BurtWorm]

8. Well, that's the most honest justification I could hope for!

Instead we'll get treated to "poetry." Which reminds me of something funny Mark Russell, the political comedian, wrote in a column once (I paraphrase):

Not one dime. Not one single penny more for the space program until they figure out how to train astronauts to say something more poetic about the view than "super!" or "fantastic!"

[Zuni]

7. undemocratic?

you have to have very specialized training to even qualify to become an astronaut. To even think about going up would require schooling, training, physical and mental evaluations etcx.
One in a million would get the opportunity. It costs a fortune to send someone up, so they take the most qualified

[BurtWorm]

9. But the question is why even send one person up

unless it's a mission that really requires a person and is actually worth undertaking. Putting a man on the moon requires a person, but what really is the point of just putting a man on the moon besides knowing we can do it? Or worse, to begin to try to put a lot of people on the moon for no good reason?

I think they should work on making flights back and forth between the earth and the moon much cheaper before they actually try to undertake them with any regularity. But I have no problem with their continuing unmanned flights into the near solar system.

4. do you mean to freeperville?

:)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

10. It cost as much as 3 Hollywood blockbusters.

And is a lot less vapid and pointless.

[Padraig18]

11. Good point!

:)