I am currently writing an article that requires some star trek knowledge. Could anyone correct/give examples for the allusions in the following text?
In Defense of Space Exploration
With all due respect to the writer, the reasoning in the anti-space program editorial in the March edition of the newspaper is an example of short-sighted and illogical analysis. Its premise is that we should base our future development on a misinterpretation of a science-fiction TV show syndicated in 1969 which predicted that 23rd century walkie-talkies would be the size of a small brick and that mid-21st century doctors would diagnose a patient with a malfunctioning “autoimmune system”. (However, in my completely unbiased opinion, it is still the best multidecade TV program ever).
According to the editorial, we should abandon space exploration until 2067, which it claims was the date of the first space program in Star Trek. In “reality”, however, that was the date of the first warp (faster than light) flight, accomplished by Zephram Cochrane (be quiet, Freud), and was preceded by a great deal of space exploration. Now that this has been established, let us turn our attention to real life.
After the Columbia tragedy (the use of the word “travesty” in the title of the aforementioned editorial, defined as “a grotesque or farcical imitation for purposes of ridicule” was either a typo or an extremely skewed interpretation of the incident), the worst possible way to honor the dead would be to cancel the space program that they risked their lives to advance. The loss of life is a tragedy, but it is an inevitable consequence of any program that seeks to expand the human race beyond its boundaries. Human history has been a series of these advances; the lack of any of them would have dramatic consequences for life as we know it. Imagine what would follow if a television broadcast in 15th century Spain had read “Contact with Expedition 17 to find a western route to the Indies has been lost, presumably due man-eating sea monsters. There has been an enormous backlash against the exploration program, resulting in the royal family of Spain turning down a request for funding by one Christopher Columbus. And now on to sports …”
The editorial dismissed spin-offs from the space program, mentioning only MRI, which it claims often does not work. Actually, MRI is a very powerful and accurate tool, allowing high-definition “slices” of the body to be shown without surgery. The other products that the space exploration has produced are legion. Miniaturization of myriad appliances (cell phones are one example) is the most evident. Satellites are another example of products generated by the space program; they are indispensable for the aforementioned cell phones, as well as for information transfer, GPS, and weather forecasting.
But these are small potatoes compared with the possibilities offered by space exploration. After all, the main products of Columbus’ expeditions were not new ideas for ship design or a stronger material for sails. There is a finite amount of many materials on Earth, and space could be an answer to the eventual lack of some of them. Asteroid mining is one of the most promising sources of metals such as iron and nickel, and could provide other useful and more exotic materials such as iridium, one of the densest, hardest, and rarest, elements, which could have widespread uses, such as radiation shields (as from computer monitors). The possibilities of other space products are quite literally beyond the imagination. Many useful materials can be manufactured best in zero-G, such as carbon nanotubes, tightly coiled rods of carbon “thread” which are hundreds of times stronger than steel.
It is not only beneficial to go into space, but the alternative, remaining on Earth, is also dangerous. Space is the only way to assure the survival of humans. A species that cannot adapt and spread as conditions allow is eventually doomed to extinction. Having all humans on only one planet is truly putting all eggs in one cosmic basket. Earth is approached by approximately 1,500 asteroids that are large enough to cause global catastrophe if one was to strike the earth. The resources delegated to near-earth object spotting are not sufficient to prevent this (Murphy’s law: anything that can go wrong, eventually will). Astronomers were taken by surprise when a meteoroid passed within a few million kilometers from Earth, a very small distance in space. We do not want to meet the same fate as the dinosaurs – becoming extinct through the collision of a meteoroid. Setting up colonies on other planets can help to minimize the effects of this inevitable occurrence on the survival of our species.
This essential endeavor cannot be advanced by canceling it as the editorial suggested, any more than hunger or war will end if we simply let them simmer for a few decades. What will happen that will magically make a casualty-free, 100% efficient, warm-and-fuzzy space program? The only logical answer would be Vulcans coming to Earth. Just as one cannot jump from arithmetic to calculus, it is not possible to expect problems with spacecraft to solve themselves over a half-century. After all, the entire point of the space program is to test out space-related technology, something that cannot be done in a laboratory. If anything, the spacecraft after the proposed hiatus will be less safe, because the newer technology that would have been developed would not have been tested in the demanding conditions of space. Imagine what would happen if the first humans abandoned making canoes because they couldn’t get to another continent, fishing was not yet profitable, and people – gasp – actually die on these early missions. Abandoning canoe-making for a half-century would not miraculously create a fleet of functional galleons. No pain, no gain.
Saying that we should not pursue space exploration because there are still problems in the world is akin to a parent saying “Eat all your food because there are starving children in the world”: eating the food will not help one starving child. The amount of NASA funding is currently chicken feed compared to the national budget, and diverting its few billion dollars will not make a significant difference in any major endeavor. In fact, colonizing other planets or the moon will eventually increase food production and alleviate world hunger, since almost all arable land in the world is farmed. Hydroponic agricultural colonies on the moon or on Mars can provide the needed food. Additionally, while eliminating the ills of humanity is an important (though not totally attainable) goal, to say that we must either abandon the space program or give up all hope eliminating these problems is to present a false dichotomy.
It is clear, then, that humans must continue their outward push into space. The benefits are too great, and the consequences are too dire, to stop such an endeavor. Let us, therefore, not flinch from the future, but shoulder the burden and continue our trek to the stars.