Most scientists do not see much interest in manned space flights, but such projects are becoming more and more, both from NASA, and from China and private companies.
Why climb Everest? “Because he is,” British climber George Mallory replied before setting off. His body was found on the Himalayan slopes in 1999, 75 years after the start of the expedition to the summit.
Why fly to Mars? “Out of sports interest. This is the only reason, but it is significant,”Hubert Curien, Minister of Science and one of the founding fathers of the European space program, said in a 1988 interview with Ciel & Espace.
That is, the presence of a person in space is a useless achievement? A human foot set foot on the lunar surface for the last time 45 years ago ("Apollo 17"). It is unlikely that he will return there earlier than ten years from now. In addition, it is possible that it will be Chinese. Funded until 2024, the International Space Station absorbs the bulk of investment in space exploration. Thomas Pesquet spent six months there, but hardly expanded our horizons: the crews replace each other at this orbital post in an atmosphere of general indifference, if there is no compatriot in the team.
So what is the point of continuing this work, or going to Mars, which is called the next and almost inevitable stage? First, let's take a short excursion into the past. The first man in space was the Soviet hero Yuri Gagarin (1961). Kennedy's lunar race was to wash away the insult. This was accomplished with the help of former Nazi Wernher von Braun and other German scientists who were recruited by the Allies to form their nuclear arsenal. Thus, sending humans into space became a by-product of a colossal military program.
Was there a place for science here? The Apollo program, which was deprived of three missions for financial reasons, brought several hundred kilograms of lunar rocks to Earth, but this was not its main goal. Most scientists do not see the point in manned flight: data from probes, robots and space observatories cannot be compared to the nuggets of information that astronauts can bring.
This stubborn opposition has existed since the days of the Apollo. The conquest of the moon was primarily of political and symbolic significance. American affirmation of the concept of "destiny," "which was formed in the 19th century by John O'Sullivan as an explanation and justification for the American quest to conquer the continent and other lands," recalls Xavier Pasco, Director of the Foundation for Strategic Research) in the "New Space Age". Everything here is tied to identity: the people of the pioneers must explore the universe, as in the TV series "Star Trek" …
But how are things now? The ISS was the result of detente and then the collapse of the USSR. This initiative, which was designed to bring Russia and the West closer together, does not have year after year. Geostrategy also plays a role, together with the need to preserve know-how, markets and industrial jobs.
Promotional video:
The main paradox today is that the world giant is in a constrained position: the United States is no longer able to independently send astronauts into orbit. After the shuttles retired in 2011, they depend on Russia. The same one serves the ISS with the help of the immortal Soyuz.
Bluff
This humiliating situation is only temporary. NASA is preparing a new carrier and habitable capsule Orion. New Space and other digital industry figures are stepping on the agency's heels. Amazon founder Jeff Bezos offers rockets to transport cargo for the colony at the lunar pole. Elon Musk, the father of SpaceX's recyclable rockets, talks about flying to Mars in 2024, even before NASA. Like his rival Bezos, he views this planet as "Plan B" with the threats looming over us.
“Elon Musk’s statements were not without bluffs: we still don’t know how to send people to Mars,” says Francis Rocard of the National Center for Scientific Research. - SpaceX is not a transport ship, and no one says a word about the infrastructure that will have to be created to stay there. He hopes for contracts with the American state."
According to the French expert, an explanation of the motivation for inhabited flights should be sought in the report of the US National Research Council "Research Ways" for 2014. This document describes everything that needs to be created to fly to Mars and return back. In addition, deep reasons are noted there: economic and technological consequences, national security and defense, national status and international relations, education and inspiration, observation and research, human survival, the spread of human aspirations on a global scale. The conclusion looks somewhat sketchy: "No reason alone justifies the continuation of habitable space flights." Even taken together, it will take a lot of political will to decide that they form a sufficient argument, the report says.
An April NASA audit report stressed that spending on an expedition to Mars in 2030 would have required an investment of $ 210 billion (double the investment in the ISS in 30 years of operation). Europe, like today (8% of the ISS budget), would be content with the back bench in this program.
China, in turn, is gradually moving towards sending a person … to the moon. But will that be enough to start the race for Mars? This would take us back to the origins of the history of the human presence in space: competition, "war minus murder." That is, to the definition of big sport according to Orwell.
Hervé Morin