Hubble Ultra Deep Field

(Or, How to Take Incredibly Expensive Pictures)

The Hubble telescope was pointed at a really small area of black space and over 400 orbits it recorded 800 exposures lasting 11.3 days. This is very far back in time. Experts believe it to be “the time shortly after the big bang when the first stars reheated the cold, dark universe.”

The final image (below), which shows around 10,000 galaxies, is in fact two separate images taken by Hubble’s Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) and the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-object Spectrometer (NICMOS). The NICMOS reveals the farthest galaxies ever seen.

Although the Hubble Telescope has enhanced our understanding of astronomy, the astronomical cost leaves a very unpleasant taste. Originally estimated at a total cost of $400 million, “…US expenditure is currently an estimated 4.5 to 6 billion US$” (Hubble Information Centre). That's billion. And they haven't finished with it yet. Why is this allowed to happen? Does it matter? Does it matter to you?

Like many others I'm not entranced by this thrilling ride into space. On the contrary, I’d like to think that the world would be a better place if the hundreds of billions that have been spent on space exploration and research had been intelligently funnelled into health, care of the elderly, emergency services, education, the Third World, urban development and local community programmes.

But let's be realistic — there's a lot wrong with how governments allocate funds. Even so, if the will is there to stand up and make brave decisions, prioritisation strategies become essential. History shows that few politicians have grasped the nettle. It doesn’t help that space program ideology is deeply entrenched in our western psyche and actual infrastructures are well established.

Pegging back the world's unnecessary budgeting habits may well become a reality, as the global financial downturn that started in 2008 suggests. It may even be bad news for NASA. I hope so. Dream on? We need to get funding that’s centered on our earthly problems instead of spending billions trying to solve heavenly riddles. Surely it's not realistic or helpful to suggest the two can run side-by-side.

The "Wow!" factor of space bewitches even intelligent people. (It happened to me, if I qualify as intelligent.) It's fantastic! It's right next door to science fiction! In fact, the distinction between the two may get a little blurred. But thinking it through takes the shine off. So let's think more.

The Hubble Telescope

Speaking to protesters before the launch of Apollo 11 in 1969, Thomas Paine, NASA’s administrator, said, “…if we could solve the problems of poverty by not pushing the button to launch men to the moon tomorrow, then we would not push that button.” At best this is a peculiar logic, justifying a massive and questionable expense ($35 billion) because it would allegedly have little impact if spent differently. Is that the point? And of course, the issue isn’t just poverty. Cherished predilections can easily blind us to the bigger picture.

Paine, who was already getting carried away thinking of a $10 billion trip to Mars1, suggested to the protesters that NASA might be able to help address our problems some day. But what do we find? Four decades later we continue to hand out billions to space scientists so they can satisfy their curiosity. Exploring Saturn's biggest moon Titan is a particularly good example.

Let’s not forget that the outrageously expensive space race of the 50s and 60s was fuelled by Cold War paranoia. Everything possible was done to better the perceived achievements of the Red Menace in Moscow. Prestige was paramount. A huge amount of cash was handed over to scientists and the military to further develop the V-2 rockets originally designed in Nazi Germany and dropped with deadly warheads on Britain. Sound scientific reasoning was virtually nonexistent, not that it mattered. Getting a man on the Moon became synonymous with global superiority:

Prestige, a thing which neither filled bellies, nor kept people warm, nor kept predators at bay, was suddenly the number one priority of an embattled nation... If the United States wanted to regain world prestige lost to the Russians because of their achievements in space, it should embark now on a trip to the moon. Here was a race that Americans might just be able to win...

Few paused to consider how walking around on the Moon in a space suit brought progress to mankind. How, exactly did it help the starving in Africa?...

Whitney Young of the National Urban League, commented at the time... “A circus act. A marvellous trick that leaves their poverty untouched. It will cost thirty-five billion dollars to put two men on the Moon. It would take ten billion to lift every poor person in this country above the official poverty standard this year. Something is wrong somewhere” (Gerard DeGroot, Dark Side of the Moon: The Magnificent Madness of the American Lunar Quest).

I once came across an online essay that attempted to defend space exploration expenditure by highlighting how others spend their cash and how governments generally allocate funds. The author (interestingly a big fan of science fiction) pointed out society’s wastefulness in general. An astonishing opinion when you think it through. Two wrongs will never make a right, not even in space.

No doubt somebody will pull text off the pro-space sites and tell us that we’ve got better frying pans (a myth in fact), stronger hip replacement joints and indestructible materials for bulletproof jackets worn in Iraq, or whatever it is. Someone’s sure to mention how lucrative moon-mining could be. It’s true that we now have thermal blankets (opportunistically shown by NASA to be useful for earthquake victims), improved defence technologies and scientific satellites vitally monitoring earth’s weather patterns and solar storms. But the glowing PR has a hollow ring to those not compromised by bias.

It's probably true that there have been over 1000 spin-offs but where in the world are we going if we think such productivity gives credence to the lavish irrelevancy of space exploration? It's both logical and realistic to assume that billions can be intelligently and systematically ploughed into scientific invention and innovation. The truth is we just don't need the prop of space-related endeavours to get the job done, so crowing about it is something of a ruse.

The selfish need to do stuff in space is the mother of NASA’s contributions. But there are brainy highly qualified people out there who will deliver similar results if they could only get the resources they need. When Hitler took a shine to the rest of Europe the big brains came up with some great technological advances that drove him back into his bunker. But let's not rely on WW3 for the next big wave of revolutionary science and engineering.

And bringing things right up to date, we hear NASA’s2 talking about going back to the Moon…

Spotty Jupiter

Sorry, but it just won’t do. The tangible returns from decades of commitment to space projects are pitiful when measured against the mind-boggling expense. It’s shameful. The next time you get a thrill from seeing exciting pictures taken in space, stop a moment to remember that the earth is still riddled with problems we need to solve.

Space exploration is an arresting subject. It’s certainly interesting seeing pictures from the edge of the universe. It was fun watching the Great Red Spot swirling about in Jupiter’s poisonous soup. But my mother just lost a lifelong friend to cancer.

1 It's worrying too that someone in such a position of authority as Paine should fantasize about getting to Mars as early as 1983.

2 By the end of 2008 NASA will have received over $430 billion (actual dollars) since it was established in 1958. It currently gets a staggering $17 billion each year from the United States federal budget.

 

 

 

photography | gallery | quotes | xmas | dementia