This article offers two arguments for the conclusion that we should refuse on moral grounds to establish a human presence on the surface of Mars The first argument appeals to a principle constraining the use of invasive or destructive techniques of scientific investigation The second appeals to a principle governing appropriate human behavior in wilderness These arguments are prefaced by two preliminary sections The first preliminary section argues that authors working in space ethics have good reason to shift their focus away from theory-based arguments in favor of arguments that develop in terms of pretheoretic beliefs The second argues that of the popular justifications for sending humans to Mars only appeals to scientific curiosity can survive reflective scrutiny

Humans Should Not Colonize Mars

When inspiration fails to inspire: A change of strategy for the US space program

Myth-free space advocacy part I-The myth of innate exploratory and migratory urges

From 1992 until 1999, NASA adopted a Faster-Better-Cheaper (FBC) paradigm—i.e., smaller low-cost spacecraft—for its unmanned missions. When many early missions met their objectives at much lower cost than traditional flagship missions, the FBC approach seemed successful. However, after the failures of two Mars spacecraft in 1999, the FBC paradigm was viewed as a failed experiment. We reflect on the legacy of FBC. In particular, we focus on the organizational learning literature to explore whether FBC, a stretch goal, was a good step for NASA. Previous examinations of FBC have focused on failure rates rather than on cost effectiveness. We revisit the question of FBC by examining all unmanned NASA missions launched between 1974 and 2007. We find that FBC missions resulted in more scientific publications per dollar of mission cost than other types of missions. From our analysis, we perceive lasting benefits to current projects from the adoption of the stretch goals, and perceive that NASA suffers from a bias against learning from the FBC experiment because of the stigma of the high-profile failed projects. We conclude with the recommendation that NASA should challenge itself with stretch goals, but with science goals rather than human exploration goals.

Faster-Better-Cheaper Projects: Too Much Risk or Overreaction to Perceived Failure?

This chapter considers the period 1972–2012, using data from the General Social Survey (GSS) to see how support for space program funding correlated with support for other government programs and with variables describing respondents’ age, social class, occupation, education, and political ideology. Arguably the highest quality, long-duration scientific opinion research study carried out in the United States, the GSS was funded primarily by the National Science Foundation and from 1973 onward carried a standard item measuring public support. Statistical factor analysis of public attitudes toward 18 areas of government funding places the space program in a cluster of four programs including more general scientific research and two kinds of transportation-related infrastructure, but separate from a cluster of five programs including education and environmental programs which one might have thought would be related to space. Not surprisingly, respondents with highly technical occupations and higher levels of education are more favorable to space funding, but even among them the balance of opinion is against increased funding for spaceflight development.

The General Social Survey

A capitalist dystopia tied to space commercialization, which depicts companies effectively supplanting the state and instituting company policy with complete disregard to the rights or needs of individuals, has been a pervasive thread in science fiction movies. Underlying such representations are fears of the loss of individuality as a result of the disappearance of the state, as well as of those mechanisms that tie the relationship between individuals and their governments. Such depictions vary widely from the generally held view in the space policy community that the commercialization of space is a needed and welcome goal to achieve sustainability and that it is directly tied to increasing the benefits of space. Most notably, these contradict the complex interdependence of governments and private companies involved in space. In this paper I characterize these two diverging trends of thoughts to illustrate the distance between one conception and the other. Drawing from literature on science fiction and dystopia, and using examples from the current debate regarding U.S. space policy, I demonstrate that the narrative depicted in science fiction can have a marked impact on the attitudes of the public toward specific policies. Such distinct perceptions are a valid representation of a link between space and society. Awareness of these narratives is important to address concerns over specific policies, as well as a way to bridge the gap between the public and the space policy community.

/pdf/the-commercialization-of-space-in-science-fiction-movies-the-2stauwwlm4.pdf

Laura M. Delgado

Papers

When inspiration fails to inspire: A change of strategy for the US space program

The Commercialization of Space in Science Fiction Movies: The Key to Sustainability or the Road to a Capitalist Dystopia?