"What have 42 years of [astronomic]ally [expensive] [manned space flight] shown other than how many times we can circle the [Earth]? What's the [cost-benefit ratio]? What's [NASA]'s annual $15 billion budget brought us? I mean other than [Tang] and [Velcro]. (...) It's time to think about these things. And ask tough questions. And slip the [surly] bonds of Congress and [smack] the face of NASA."

--[John Baer], "Is NASA Lost in Space?", [Philadelphia Daily News], Feb. 3, 2003

Far be it for me to disagree with the [mouth-breathing moron|learned] Mr. Baer. I have no doubt that he spent costly seconds of [making shit up|research] determining that space travel has produced only Tang and Velcro. Surely something as [frivolous] as space travel could not have produced [important] [research] in [biology], [medicine], [metallurgy], [physics], and [astronomy], right? I mean, who am I to argue with a [fuckhead|guy] who'd claim that he wants NASA gone partly out of respect for deceased astronauts then close his column by [twist]ing a [High Flight|poem] particularly beloved by astronauts into a [cruel], [mean]-spirited jab at those same astronauts and their families, right? Right?

You hear this [argument] from people sometimes -- that space travel is too [dangerous], that we should be spending NASA's money on [education] (although these same people always seem to [complain] when too much [money] is devoted to [public school]s, damn [whippersnapper] coddled children), that [robot]s could do the job as well as people.

Is space travel [dangerous]? It sure as hell is. With the [STS-107|Columbia crash], NASA has a 2% [failure] rate for its crewed launches. That's not an insignificant risk -- kill two of your 100 closest friends and try to tell me that's something you'd feel good about. But it's a much better rate than in the early days of [aviation] or the early days of [jet aviation]. When pilots were testing [experimental aircraft] at [Edwards Air Force Base] in the 1950s and '60s, they had a failure rate of 25%. Do Mr. Baer and his ilk think the [risk]s outweighed the [benefit]s back then? Would he give up the [jet airliner]? The [automobile]? [Vaccination]s? Would he ever emerge from his [cave]? [Progress] is always [risky]; [stagnation], on the other hand, is not always [safe].

Could [fund]s allocated for space travel be better spent on other programs? Perhaps. I know many people who would agree, though most of them would probably disagree, even with each other, on what the money should be spent on. However, I consider the argument to be [bogus] -- if space travel and education (or [defense] or the [environment] or [highway safety] or [business incentive]s or whatever) are both [worthy] [enterprise]s AND if there is sufficient money to fund both, it's [foolish] to say that one of the programs should be designated less worthy and shut down. It's the equivalent of asking a parent to choose which child they [love] the most so that the other can be given up for adoption.

And could NASA's projects be carried out more [efficient]ly by uncrewed missions? I'm not convinced. I can't trust my [home computer] not to [crash] when I'm working on important projects -- why should I trust that a [space crew] of robots won't suffer [computer malfunction]s, also? Sure, my computer is a lot less complex than the [machine]s that NASA uses, but I've seen enough problems with other computers, both [weak] and [powerful], to know that they're not a magical [cure-all]. Computers make good [tool]s, but until they're smart enough not to make silly [glitch]-driven mistakes, I'm not convinced they'd make good [explorer]s without human [guidance].

I am not, by training or inclination, a [scientist], so I'm not really that comfortable discussing the scientific breakthroughs that space exploration and research have brought about. I'm not a good [businessman] either, so I have trouble saying, yeah, the stuff discovered up there is good for business. But I have no difficulty saying that if we run away from the [space program] because people have died, we are [Worthless Damnable Cowards]. Any race that abandons progress onwards and upwards has stopped [evolution|evolving] -- hell, they've probably already started [devolution|devolving].

On a purely [personal] level, I want the space program to continue because I've read and loved stories by [Ray Bradbury], [Isaac Asimov], [Jack Williamson], and dozens of others and have [dream]ed, with them, of riding that big [rocketship] into the [vacuum], of watching that [big blue marble] fall away below me, of seeing other [world]s with my own eyes, rather than through a [television] or [movie] screen. I doubt I'll ever have a chance to stand on the surface of the [moon], but I've seen [photograph]s taken on the moon, and I know that the [beauty] of those photos is certainly not something I'd pin a [price tag] on. I'll never have the opportunity to stand on the red sands of [Mars], but I think someone will someday, and that's worth, to me, even more than that $15 billion annual cost.

"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return."
--[Leonardo da Vinci]

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/columnists/john_baer/5091311.htm
http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/researchupdate.html
http://www.locusmag.com/2003/Features/Letters02.html
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery
Thanks to [The Custodian], [riverrun], [Professor Pi], and [arcanamundi] for help with the title

Once you have tasted flight: In defense of manned space travel (idea)