|
16 January 2004 |
|
http://www.timesrecord.com/WEBSITE/MAIN.nsf/0/... |
|
BRUNSWICK - Is the Bush administration's push to send astronauts to the moon and Mars one small step for man or one giant step for the militarization of space? An international peace group based in Brunswick argues that the new policy outlined Wednesday by President Bush is motivated more by expansionist military thinking than a scientific quest to further humankind's knowledge about the universe. Apart from the philosophical concerns, Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, says that the plan is too expensive and too dangerous. With Michio Kaku, professor of theoretical physics at City University of New York, Gagnon is co-author of a paper warning that the administration's plan to establish permanent bases on the moon and its reconsideration of using nuclear-fueled rockets could backfire and result in eroding public confidence in the space program in general. In his speech to workers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on Wednesday, Bush proposed a manned lunar landing by 2015 and the establishment of a lunar "way-station" to launch manned missions to Mars. Although the president didn't specify the costs for such an ambitious program, estimates from his father's administration ranged from $300 billion to $500 billion for a manned flight program to Mars. Scientific questions The cost of such a massive program has some NASA scientists questioning the wisdom of turning back to manned flights to the moon and Mars. "Whenever you introduce a human into the equation, it makes everything more expensive and the safety factor becomes a bigger issue," said Jack Fishman, a NASA climatologist at Langley, Va. Fishman said there is a constant stream of proposals to NASA for research projects. A huge project like what the president proposes would only take money away from other projects, some of which could have more lasting benefit. "Not many people around here believe manned flights to Mars will ever happen," he said. Jerry LaSala, director of the Southworth Planetarium in Portland, said he is skeptical. "In principal the technology exists to send humans to space," he said. "In practice, there are a lot of details that need to be invented." LaSala said there is still a lot of science that can be obtained by unmanned trips like the one currently taking place on Mars. "I'm not convinced we've gotten close to the limits of unmanned exploration," he said. Economic impact Although Bush did not specify the cost of the project, economists were busy at their calculators speculating that such a project would cost close to $500 billion and would have a negative impact on an economy already burdened with national debt and deficits. One of those economists is Christopher St. John, executive director of the Maine Center for Economic Policy in Augusta. "Many economists have been concerned even before the president's space speech," St. John said. "Deficit spending sometimes works in the short term to improve the economy. But in this case, based on a deficit of more than $5 trillion, and the Medicare drug benefits recently passed, these economists speculate that by 2013, the deficit will make up 51 percent of the country's gross domestic product. The interest rate alone will take up 15 percent of our revenues." What that means for the average consumer without a degree in economics is that interest rates will climb; it will cost more to buy a car or house; and the country will be more dependent on foreign economies to buy its debt. "The danger is," St. John said, "that given our dependence on foreigners buying our debt, what happens if those investors lose confidence in us because of our misguided fiscal policy?" Ulterior motives For Bruce Gagnon of Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, the big issue is purpose. Reached Thursday at his Brunswick home, he said there were two reasons why he believes the administration introduced the proposal. "One reason is to cause a massive budget deficit to allow the government to drop social programs," Gagnon said. "This goes back to the Reagan administration and 'Star Wars,' an attempt to reduce government." "Star Wars" is the term applied to a proposed space-based satellite system that would theoretically protect the United States from missile attacks. It was never built. The other reason the Bush administration is renewing talk of manned flight to the moon and Mars is China, according to Gagnon. "China is entering the space race," Gagnon said, "And it's driving this administration crazy." In a paper released before Bush's speech, Gagnon wrote that there are legitimate reasons to question the plan to establish a base on the moon. "The military has long eyed the moon as a potential base of operations as warfare is moved into the heavens. The moon is also the site of rare helium-3, which many view as the replacement for fossil fuels as supplies dwindle on Earth," Gagnon wrote. According to Gagnon, the United States never signed the 1979 Moon Treaty created by the United Nations to prevent a rush on land claims and military bases. "Just as the Spanish Armada and British Navy were created to protect the 'interests and investments' in the New World," Gagnon said, "space is viewed today as open territory to be seized for eventual corporate profit." Gagnon said his group is not opposed to space exploration per se. "There is a benefit to the space program," he said. "We have gotten some good things from it. What we are opposed to is the kind of seed we are planting for future space programs. We are afraid that space will be given over to war, greed and environmental degradation. Before that happens, the American people need to get involved. We need to debate what kind of space program we want." Another Brunswick member of Global Network, Loukie Lofchie, summarized her feeling about the proposed plan with one word: Inappropriate. "To spend billions of dollars on manned flights to Mars when there are people in this country who can't afford health care seems ridiculous," she said. The Global Network was founded in 1992 and has more than 170 affiliates throughout the world. Its headquarters moved from Florida to Brunswick in 2003.
|
|
|
