Old new

2000/01/01 Irazabalbeitia, Inaki - kimikaria eta zientzia-dibulgatzaileaElhuyar Fundazioa Iturria: Elhuyar aldizkaria

• Astronautika
• Etika

It is common that when accidents or failures occur in the exploration of space the reason and meaning of this action is endangered. A newspaper in our country, after losing Mars Polar Lander, has asked if in the exploration of Mars a fortune of these characteristics can be used, with the excuse of hunger and misery of the world.

I, to tell the truth, have no doubt. The money used in space exploration is generally well invested. The installation of satellites, probes, stations, laboratories or ferries in space has not only meant an enormous increase in human knowledge, but has totally transformed our daily life. It is very important to know that Jupiter has rings or that Io volcanoes lash to see the universe with other eyes or know where we come from and where we go. By researching Mars we can find clues to better understand the evolution of our planet. Venus has shown us how far the greenhouse effect can go.

On the other hand, the evolution of space technology has had a great influence on the daily life of society at all levels. Communication satellites have made the world smaller: the distant has become a neighborhood. We would not understand the weather forecast without the image of Meteosat. We could not monitor the deforestation of Amazonas without remote sensing satellites. The ceramics of the knee prosthesis and titanium would be a chimera. In the pans the eggs would stick and we could not tie with velcro sports footwear.

Doubting the money used in space exploration can be legitimate in terms of efficiency and reliability. After the defeat of the 1992 Mars Observer probe, it would be necessary to analyze whether the policy promoted by NASA, 'smaller, cheaper and faster', has not fallen cheaper. It is clear that ancient space exploration such as Voyager, a large, expensive and full of tasks, cannot be posed. Playing $1 billion on a card is risking too much and not just economic. The defeat of such a mission leaves a scientist unaddressed. However, $165 million from Mars Polar Land may be insufficient to ensure the minimum safety and quality needed to send a tool to space successfully.

In any case, the cost of Mars Polar Land is lower than the number of nullity clauses of several players and who generates more wealth and benefits?