Space Exploration He Space Shuttle Columbia Disintegrated

Space exploration he Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated Texas 2003 return Earth. The Challenger exploded shortly launch 1986. An Apollo 1 spacecraft imploded fire launch pad 1967. In case, lives crew members lost. The hugely complex shuttle a bit airplane

What are the pros and cons of manned space exploration from an ethical perspective? Should the U.S. spend billions of dollars to return an astronaut to the moon?

During the Cold War, manned space flights were a powerful symbolic image of the success of the U.S. space program. For the Russians to send cosmonauts into space and the Americans to send computers would have been an admission of defeat, a sign of inferiority of the U.S. government. Also, the computerized technology of the 1950s and 1960s was far inferior to what is available today. However, now that the Cold War is at an end, the question remains: why explore the cosmos with manned missions? There seems to be no pressing military or public relations reason for human beings to be sent into space. It is less costly, safer, and does not compromise scientific achievement to send machines to explore space. So why does the U.S. continue to attempt to send manned space missions at great risk to astronauts on a regular basis? It is clearly unethical to put human beings at risk, when machines can do the work equally well.

Although manned space missions clearly attract more press coverage and attention, "robotic space exploration has become the heavy lifter for serious space science. While shuttle launches and the International Space Station get all the media coverage, these small, relatively inexpensive unmanned missions are doing important science in the background" (Rahls 2005:1). In the wake of recent budget cuts to NASA, space exploration (and the necessary safety checks for manned space flights) has grown increasingly costly. Ethically speaking, NASA cannot even perform adequate safety checks to guarantee the safety of astronauts.

Unlike humans, robots do not need food, water, or other extraneous accoutrements to keep them alive, and if there is a malfunction, the only loss is a financial one, not a loss of life. "As computers become more capable and reliable, robots of greater complexity will be built to handle even the most challenging assignments. The time for humans to explore space may have come [and gone]…. And, indeed, may have gone forever" (Rahls, 2005:1). Advocates of manned space travel counter that "to save money and reduce failure rates to a minimum, robotic probes are stripped down to essentials," and do not yield as much effective data as do manned spacecrafts (Rahls, 2005:1). However, it is important to note that if manned space vehicles eliminated or sharply reduced in number, then unmanned vehicles could potentially become more sophisticated, given the cost savings that would ensue. Robotic missions, with proper investment, could also become even more effective if the funds currently focused on manned missions were diverted to unmanned computerized technology. While in the past human-staffed missions were able to obtain more precise measurements, computers are improving constantly, and the problems encountered in the past may be less burdensome in the future.

The main argument for continued manned flights is the support of the public and astronauts themselves. 80% of the public supports manned flight. And people are clearly willing to assume the risks of going into space (Rahls, 2005:2). Astronauts are some of the most highly-trained individuals in the world, and they presumably have the intellectual foresight to weigh the pros and cons of their missions. Some wealthy individuals have even participated in 'space tourism' to experience zero gravity firsthand, demonstrating the lust human beings seem to have for further exploration (Rahls, 2005:1). But this desire, even though it may be strong, cannot compel NASA to allow such risks to be taken when far less costly and dangerous alternatives exist. 'Do no harm' -- or do the least amount of harm is a fundamental ethical principle of all scientific discoveries.