Dan says…

Yesterday the space shuttle Atlantis returned from it’s final mission before being retired. The remaining two shuttles in NASA’s fleet, Endeavor and Discovery, will be flying their final missions later this year.

After that? In six months? The United States will not have a single vehicle capable of taking humans into space. If US astronauts want to go into space after that, they’ll have to either drink the cyanide-flavored Kool-Aid and wait for Hale-Bopp to come around again, or hitch a ride on a Russian rocket.

Why? President Obama is scrapping Constellation, NASA’s program to succeed the shuttle program for manned space flight. High costs and changing priorities were his primary reasons.

But in the same breath he also said he’s committing $1.2 billion MORE dollars to the space program annually, over the current budget, and that he hopes that funding will help to create more jobs.

Well, sorta.

Some of that money is earmarked to help get the private sector up to speed on building spaceships. Uh, right. For less than a billion a year (not all of the money is destined for the private sector), President Obama expects the private sector to be able to design, build, test and deliver spacecraft that will be cheaper and safer than what NASA, a huge collection of the smartest people on the planet, with a much larger budget, can do.

Kind of like farming out the military budget to the local militias.

President Obama thinks we shouldn’t bother going to the moon again, and I kind of agree. We’ve been there. Six times. We’re the only country to ever have done it. However, the Constellation program was about building craft and developing technologies capable of sending humans to Mars. The moon was sort of supposed to be practice. Work the kinks out before the family truckster gets all gassed up for the really big trip. By scrapping the moon and Constellation, he’s effectively pushing a manned mission to Mars out well beyond the 2030’s, as he speculates, beyond the time that he’d “expect to be around to see it happen.”

Mars is doable, peeps. Robert Zubrin, one of space exploration’s bigger brainiacs, wrote a book in 1997 titled The Case for Mars (which I’ve read, twice), that lays out several ingenious, low-cost, efficient ways to get people to and from Mars with some regularity. $20-30 billion, from blueprints to sandy Mars footprints.

Obama’s right, though. Times are different. After all the financial giveaways and lingering shitbowl economy, money’s tight. And NASA’s expensive. NASA’s budget this year is $19 billion, and on average, $10 billion of that would go to the Constellation program for the next ten years. With Constellation scrapped, it’d free up most (not all) of that money to go toward other priorities Obama outlined, including upgrades to the Kennedy Space Center, the successor to the Hubble telescope, and unmanned missions deeper into space. All worthy objectives. But it ain’t Mars.

And b-b-b-billions spent on space is a lot of money, without question. Until you compare it to t-t-t-trillions. The national budget for 2010 is about $3.6 trillion. Of that, $1,700 billion is spent on social programs. Is another few billion siphoned from NASA really going to help the American condition?

Anyway, what does NASA do to help us in our daily lives? I mean, what does having men and women in space do for us, other than provide a library worth of video of guys in blue jumpsuits gobbling up floating m&m’s?

Well? You like boobs, right? Men like ‘em. Women like to keep ‘em, not losing them or their lives to breast cancer. Well? NASA SAVES boobs. Mammograms? Biopsies that don’t require massive breast resection just to get a tissue sample? That came from the imaging technologies developed for Earth-orbit telescopes.

And there’s In-home water purification. And rain water purification for developing countries.

Satellite radio and GPS systems.

Cordless tools.

Medical devices.

Fire-resistant materials.

Smoke detectors.

The list is really, really long.

And the technologies developed to get man to Mars will only add to that list. Better insulation technologies. Better heating technologies. Think of all the tech required to turn a vast desert into a somewhat hospitable place for humans to set up shop. That kind of tech can absolutely be translated to helping us Earthbound brethren in solving infrastructure challenges in underdeveloped countries, not to mention our own homes.

Obama claims the $6 billion (over 5 years) he’s adding to NASA’s budget is going to result in more jobs. And he’s right, in a robbing Peter to pay Paul kind of way. The 7,000 people estimated to be jobless as a result of the retirement of the space shuttle fleet and the cancellation of Constellation will be looking for jobs, and some of them may even find new jobs at NASA or in the private sector with that additional funding.

But probably not all of them. So no, it’s not going to result in NEW new jobs, just the re-employment of some of the people who used to have jobs.

Manned spaceflight is important. It forces our best and brightest to find solutions for problems we didn’t know needed addressing, and so far in NASA’s 50 year history, that’s resulted in tangible improvements to the daily lives of Americans and people less fortunate the world over. All of that makes manned spaceflight worth the investment.

The added pride, the celebration of the achievement of humanity, and the re-establishment of the United States as the pre-eminent leader in all things outerworldly (because China, Russia, India and Japan are all working toward manned moon missions in the next ten years)? That’s gravy. Everyone loves gravy.

…but Jane thinks…

If NASA engineering had gone into the construction of the now famous “blowoff preventer,” instead of Halliburton’s for-profit manufactured and seriously faulty work, the Gulf of Mexico might not currently be soaked in oil. The list of innovations and creative applications of technology afforded all of us because of NASA’s work is staggering. There is no question in my mind that as far as government agencies go, NASA has its act together more than most. Nevertheless, pursuing space exploration further at this time would be an irresponsible use of resources.

One of the critics of Obama’s “anemic” new space exploration budget, James Logsdon (professor emeritus at George Washington University’s Space Policy Institute and author of “The Decision to Go to the Moon: Project Apollo and the National Interest) said this in a round table discussion on the topic: ” The principal benefits from human spaceflight are intangible, but nevertheless substantial. The moon missions of the ’60s instilled in Americans a sense of “international prestige and national pride’…”

You know what else instills a sense of international prestige and national pride? Not having an economy on par with a third world banana republic on the eve of a drug cartel supported coup. Know what else? Not mucking up the planet to such a degree that we have to claim responsibility for the extinction of species, holes in the ozone layer, air and water pollution, and the squandering of precious natural resources.

There’s no reason why the innovations that have resulted from space exploration programs needs to come to a grinding halt. Our scientific capabilities allow for simulations of space travel that can yield tremendous benefits. The potential job losses due to the cutbacks in funding are as yet unknown; so many private companies are already massive contributers of parts, services, labor, and support to the space program, that it would be specious to imply, as some have (not Dan) that the entire population of space program associated employees of NASA will soon be out on the streets, pink slips in hand.

And, as Esther Dyson pointed out, “The U.S. Defense Department may have created the Internet, but had it kept control of the technology, it’s unlikely the Web would have become the vibrant public resource it is today. That credit goes to the investment and activity of private citizens and private companies, starting in the late 1980s and early 1990s.”

Exploration of space is cool. No doubt about it. Far more little kids go to bed at night dreaming of riding in a rocket to Mars than drift off contemplating their glorious futures as inventors of non-polluting, clean energy sources. But right now, we have bigger fish to fry (New! Pre-oiled for your convenience!). Beyond merely being cool, space exploration should be a goal for many of the reasons Dan cited. But until we’ve managed to secure our borders from people who wish to do us harm, protect and preserve our planet and its most fragile and defenseless inhabitants, clean up the already more than 6,000 satellites already launched and junking up the stratosphere as well as the debris from prior launches, explosions, and spacecraft breakdowns, steady and grow our economy, and provide for the educational, nutritional, and healthcare needs of all of our own citizens, it’s a luxury we can’t afford. And as for inhabiting Mars? Let’s prove that we can manage the planet we’ve already got before we go and screw up another one.

Jane says…

I feel a little bit like that stand-up comedian who carries on about why you park in the driveway and you drive on a parkway, but I’m plowing through the cliché anyway.

IT WAS A KILLER WHALE. WHAT THE HELL DID YOU EXPECT??

Anyone who has ever tried to contain a screaming toddler in an enclosed time-out space knows that attempting to keep wild things in captivity is a bad plan. Mother Nature is not a huge fan of the Zoo, or the Wild Animal Park, or the Sea World or Sea World derivative.

My dog is so utterly domesticated that she’s tried to sit in an easy chair and join in conversation during dinner parties. On more than one occasion. Nevertheless, that bitch still tries to bite my arm off if I make the foolhardy error of trying to take a hunk of rawhide away from her. Would you expect anything less from a tiger or lion or bear or predatory sea-dwelling mammal?

“But how do kids learn about animals if they can’t see them in zoos?” I’ve heard this before, and to those of you who would ask the question I say this, “Go away. You aren’t smart enough for me to talk to you.” PBS? The Discovery Channel? The Internet? Wait…wait…I got it…ready? Ready? Brace yourself…Books!!

Wild animals in captivity are entertainment, not education. Pretending otherwise is ludicrous. Zoos and the like exist for profit, not education. Certainly, there are conservation efforts that are supported by zoos, but I refuse to believe that kids wouldn’t be introduced to animals in such a way that they should grow up to care about their welfare if wild animals weren’t trapped and caged.

These animals don’t act like animals in the wild, and often they don’t even look like animals in the wild. They pace and develop other nervous tics, some dangerous to their physical health. They are often subject to changes in the environment to which they are unsuited – their cycles and rhythms are off. Without the opportunity to hunt, or be hunted, they aren’t fulfilling any evolutionary destiny or purpose either. They are bored. Taking another page from the toddler playbook, if you try to keep a bored toddler subdued for too long, you will end up maimed, or at least emotionally scarred.

Mother Nature will put up with a lot from us. But when she has something to say, she says it loud.

Note: I take my kids to the zoo. I’ve taken them to Sea World (boring and expensive). So, mommy’s a bit of a hypocrite. Mommy’s also a bit of a buzz kill, because the whole time we’re at the zoo, I’m pointing out how miserable the animals look, especially the elephants.

…but Dan thinks…

It’s funny. When we discussed our angles on this post, I was certain that for the first time, Jane and I were going to be on the same page. We were actually. going. to agree. I was considering calling The Guinness Book. But maybe that’s premature.

It’s not called a Snuggling Whale. A Happygoodtime Whale. It’s a killer. For prey like seals, they swim up from underneath them, wheel and swat them out of the water, into the air with their massive tails, knocking the seals unconscious; sometimes killing them with that single stroke. Then it’s lunchtime.

And they know how to hunt in groups. They are organized killers.

I love zoos. We have an annual membership to our local zoo and still find time to attend one or two others. For those that think that you can learn about the visceral experiences of life by reading about them or watching television, I’d suggest that they live pretty sheltered lives, and that thrown out into nature, those books will do little to help a person cope with dangerous encounters without real-life experience to back it up. Unless it’s a really heavy book and you have perfect aim.

In my basement I have a beautiful bearskin rug I got from my father, a bear he killed while out in the woods, hunting. He hadn’t been planning on it. Wasn’t even hunting for bear. But he was in the woods, saw a 250 pound black bear and tried his best to stay out of it’s way. And he did, right up until it smelled him, or smelled his prospective next meal, turned and charged at my father.

Tiny black eyes, enormous head, mouth agape, slobber dripping in anticipation as he lumbered toward my father.

Kill or be killed. Right there. My father raised his rifle, drew a bead and placed a slug between the bear’s eyes, dropping his would-be killer. There’s absolutely no way a book or a made-for-television movie can convey that pants-filling experience. But being able to see a live animal in a less-than-natural habitat can at least expose us, our kids, to the size and majesty and strength and potential danger of these animals.

I want to make sure this stays focused – this post isn’t about how terrible it is that animals are in captivity. At least that’s not what Jane and I discussed before we started writing. This post is about the arrogance, naivete and even stupidity of intentionally courting danger with animals that can kill.

Like the actor who thought he he could show the world how humane and lovable wild bears are, by embedding himself in their habitat, talking in falsetto to them, and then oops. Getting too close when food was scarce. Turns out that B-list actors are delicious.

Or Seigfried and Roy. “She was just trying to protect him.” Right. From not getting his head bitten off?

Or the three drunk guys in the Siberian zoo who decided to taunt the bears. And then one fell into the bear pit. Did you know whiskey makes an excellent marinade?

You can’t get the feel for rapelling down the side of a cliff, your stomach leaping into your throat, your bladder almost emptying as you look down, without actually strapping on the harness, leaning over that cliff, then jumping. But you do so knowing that if the rope is frayed, the harness unsecure or your technique is poor, you might plunge straight down to the rocks below.

So yes, it’s sad that that trainer lost her life to that killer whale. But as Jane and I said to each other in our post-planning meeting, “What’d you expect?”