If you search for the word 'exploration' at the official OED website (askoxford.com), in addition to the definition for 'explore' (the noun is listed merely as a derivative of the verb in the concise edition, which is the edition available online for free) you will also (at the time of writing) see three space-related search results.  Two of these are dictionary entries, and the third is an article about space-related quotes.  I'm more concerned with the definition for 'explore' but out of interest, and if you (and in particular, our editor) will indulge me in a brief foray into lexicography, I'd like to cover the other two too. The first is 'space age', which is defined as:

noun (the space age) the era starting when the exploration of space became possible.

The second is 'astronautics'.  This is not a typing error, and is a word with which I was previously unfamiliar, but is defined as follows:

plural noun treated as sing. the science and technology of space travel and exploration.

I mention these definitions to demonstrate the inextricable link twixt space and exploration.  Exploration is evolutionary, as it cannot be applied to the same place or concept indefinitely, because that which was there to explore and discover will eventually all be discovered, leaving nothing left to explore, and so we must move on.  Were we to define 'exploration' several centuries ago, I'm sure there would have been reference to new lands, new peoples of strange custom and clothing, and new species of root vegetable, but as we are in the present, so the current ideal of exploration must refer to that which we currently explore, and certainly, we have now known about potatoes for some time.  So then exploration and space go together like space and exploration, and we should be happy about that, or perhaps we would all be members of SeaSIG.

So then, to the definition of 'explore':

verb travel through an unfamiliar area in order to learn about it

So the US administration has decided to cancel NASA's Constellation program, extending the life of the International Space Station so we can continue to (ahem) 'explore' near earth orbit.  It was disappointing enough that we have spent so long going nowhere that going back to the moon seemed like doing something new, but now we are not even going to do that.  NASA it seems are no more keen to extend the shuttle program than the government due to unsupported third-party systems/components, general wear and therefore overall safety concerns of extending the program, but now as well as having to hitch a lift into orbit from the Russians, it seems NASA have even been robbed of their own replacement for the shuttle.  I recently went back to Florida because, quite honestly, one holiday there is not enough, but this year at KSC NASA had created all manner of models, displays and information about Constellation and the Orion rockets, celebrating their bold new venture, and the return to the moon.  It seemed odd, with all this information about the future of space flight, that in fact, it had all already been scrapped, and none of it will ever actually be built, or flown.  I doubt the protests of a few politicians in the affected states will be able to reverse the decision.

So we are going to continue to explore near-earth orbit and this is the reason for the definition above.  We have been literally going around in circles in near-earth orbit for decades.  We are not exploring near-earth orbit, there is nothing new there to discover and spinning endlessly around this rock of ours at a distance even our rail system can cover in a few hours does not by any definition of the word constitute 'exploration'.  Whilst the work there might be important, and indeed pharmacological experimentation and discovery is important, we are not really exploring space, rather we are using the conditions of being in space to study other subjects.  So let us not be fooled by suggestions that we are exploring near-earth orbit.  One cannot explore without going somewhere new.

The US government want commercial involvement in space missions to increase, but without NASA or an equivalent (as if there were one) pushing the boundaries of human space-travel, then commercial interests will never get beyond near-earth orbit, technological advances for use on earth, short orbital tourist flights and at the very most, in the distant future, marginally lowering the cost for short stays in space for civilians with enough money.  No amount of commercial involvement is going to get us back to the moon, or on to Mars, so let us lament the death of our dreams to see that day.  I would think it is now guaranteed that I will never see man on the moon in my lifetime, and certainly not Mars.  Having been born too late to be around for the last trip to the moon, I will die too early for the next.  I also think we can now be certain that the first generation of moon explorers will all be dead before the second generation land there, and lets not forget that this was all a distraction from the fact that we should have been going to mars next anyway.  Man's greatest achievement is slipping away from us and the thought that we will soon no longer have anyone alive who was involved in it is as disconcerting as it is disappointing, depressing, disgraceful.

Gemini Extravehicular Space Suit, NASA, May 1965

We have always been explorers, and as I have said, when we have exhausted what there is to discover in one place, we must move on to the next, to continue to discover, to continue to explore.  As with so many things, Aaron Sorkin put it best.  When asked why we need to go to Mars, Sam Seaborne replied:

Well apparently, Mars is not next.  Nothing is next.  What was last is what's next.  By actively deciding that we are not going back to the moon, by actively deciding that we are not preparing at any point for a mission to Mars, by actively deciding that we will continue to go no further than we have already been, to remain in orbit around the planet that holds us captive, we have witnessed the death of genuine exploration.  I might never get to see man on the moon, or Mars, but I was here for one important day in history.  The day that as a species, we turned our backs on what we have always done, what we have always been; explorers.  I lived through the time when we decided, this far, and no further.  We're done.  I'm sure future generations will thank us.

Of course, were we not so unadventurous as a nation, perhaps we could have been involved in the space race, perhaps we could have inspired billions and perhaps when one nation stops exploring, we could have continued without them, but our government were never interested in space.  In 1962, in his famous speech, JFK said

“The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in this race for space.”

I consider this statement to be true, and as relevant today as it was then.  We are no leader of other nations and have not been for a long time.  A time, coincidentally, when we were explorers, when we ruled the waves.  Any nation at the forefront of exploration is a leader.  So why do we blame the US for cancelling this new moon adventure?  Why should they be responsible for carrying the dreams and inspiration of an entire planet?  Why should they be expected to cover the extraordinary cost of travelling to the moon and beyond?  The answer is simple.

It's the price you pay for winning.

Written by Dave Scott ©

 

 

 

    

 

Web Designer: Emma Jane Maddison

© Northumberland Astronomical Society 2010