MILLIONS of people around the world will by now have seen a bright new star in the firmament. The Christmas star perhaps, reappearing two thousand years on? Well, no. The bright new light appeared when NASA astronauts unfurled the solar arrays that power the International Space Station. The event may not be the dawn of Christianity, but it is still portentous.
Once completed, the space station will have as much living space as a three-bedroom house. So, as we enter 2001, space travel is not be on quite the scale envisaged in Arthur C. Clarke鈥檚 novel or Stanley Kubrick鈥檚 movie. But it was Clarke鈥檚 contention that in order to advance, humanity should leave the Earth-and in that sense, the odyssey may have begun.
One of the station鈥檚 primary goals is research into the effects of microgravity. Forget NASA鈥檚 line that the $60 billion project will give birth to new materials and ultra-pure drugs. If corporations thought there was big money to be made, you can bet they鈥檇 have funded their own space lab by now. But microgravity research does have potential.
Advertisement
For fundamental physics, the station may have a good deal to offer. How often have you heard people complain that there鈥檚 not enough curiosity-driven research going on? Here is the perfect setting for researchers to test their wilder ideas about gravity.
But it鈥檚 biology that has the strongest case. Looking back at the Apollo programme, scientists are appalled by the risks that astronauts were exposed to. Nobody knew what impact microgravity and intense solar radiation would have on them. If humans are to spend long periods in space-eventually travelling to Mars and beyond-we must know how our bodies will be changed by living in space.
Critics argue that all this research can be done by robots instructed from Earth. But research into decalcification of bones and muscle fatigue-and how to overcome them-will never be done without real bodies in space.
One lesson NASA should already have learned is that safety must be a priority. No one needs to be told that travelling into space is risky. The recent failure of the space shuttle鈥檚 main mechanism for releasing its spent boosters is a reminder that safety problems remain (see 鈥淪huttle fleet plagued by wear and tear鈥�). A repeat of the Challenger accident could set back human spaceflight for years.
That would be a tragedy. Sending people into space will always be dangerous and costly. But these are not the only considerations. The alternative is that our only future lies here on this overcrowded planet.
Clarke may have got the details wrong, but as 2001 dawns we may have entered a new era. A NASA spokesman observed that 30 October, the day before Bill Shepherd鈥檚 crew arrived on the station, may have been the last day on which there will be no human in space. That new star could be the first permanent colony in space. How do you put a price tag on that?
