This story begins with chaotic terrain on a moon of Jupiter, Europa. Ever since the space probe Galileo zipped by this part of the solar system and recorded the most detailed pictures of the surface of Europa, astroscientists have pretty much come to an agreement that Europa has a lot of water underneath the icy surface; oceans of water. The question they argued about was how thick was the surface ice? Some said, “Very thick, as in tens of kilometers”; other said, “at times and at certain places, not very thick at all – three kilometers or maybe even water on the surface.” Typically, the thick-icers had believable mathematical models to back up their story. All except for the “chaotic terrain” an area on the surface of Europa that looks exactly like it has icebergs that once floated on water. The thin-icers claimed this patch. Now we can add a third point of view, call them the middle-lakers.

In a paper published in Nature [16 November 2011, paywalled, Active formation of ‘chaos terrain’ over shallow subsurface water on Europa ] a team of scientists mostly from the University of Texas, Austin have hypothesized that enormous liquid ‘lakes’ exist in the Europa ice crust, figuratively half-way between the oceans below and the rock-like surface of ice. These lakes, some with at least the volume of the Great Lakes in the United States and Canada, may provide a means of water exchange between the truly massive oceans below (more ocean water than Earth) and the surface of the moon.

The significance of this hypothesis, beside settling the thin-icer vs thick-icer controversy by saying “both” with an intermediate layer some places, is that it increases the possibility of life on Europa. This has always been considered possible – the presence of water has long been associated with life; but on a Europa with a very thick shell of ice, the chances for energy and gasses interchange with the surface might limit the development of life. The postulated existence of the lakes means there is more dynamics in the waters of Europa, which would favor life.

Of course, this is a hypothesis. That means it needs to be tested. One of these days one or more probes will be sent from Earth to Europa and now it’s at least likely one will head for the ‘chaotic terrain’ area. Not only is that the area of most interest on the surface, but probably represents the shortest distance for drilling to the waters below. For now though, scientists in the field are quite pleased to have this alternative explanation for the chaos terrain and the behavior of Europa water. It fits the available facts, which is a good start.

[SciTechStory: On the Moon or elsewhere, follow the water]

It’s been known for decades that there are striking differences between the surface of the Moon on the near side (the side we see from Earth), which is relatively smooth, low and flat, and the far side, which is high, mountainous and has a much thicker crust, about 50 kilometers (30 miles) thicker. It’s also widely accepted that something about the size of Mars slammed into the Earth about 4.5 billion years ago and ejected material that eventually coalesced into the Moon. The new hypothesis, as simulated by computer, proposes that two moons were created at about that time with the second roughly 1/30th (about 4%) the mass of the larger moon. The second moon shared the same orbit for about 100 million years but at some point it collided – not with a huge high velocity bang, but more likely a slower velocity “splat.”

The relatively slow impact caused neither a huge crater nor much volcanic activity, but added a deep layer of rock – a kind of mountain building from the sky – to one side of the Moon. Because of the Earth-Moon tides, the heavier, thicker side automatically became the dark-side, the one not visible from Earth. The model helps to explain the composition of the Moon’s crust, which on the near-side is dominated by potassium, rare-earth metals and phosphorus (the so-called KREEP composition). This could have been caused by displacement of ‘old crust’ from the far-side to the near-side during the collision.

Now here’s the key point: This is a model, which makes a hypothesis. It’s not the only model out there. In fact, Jutzi and Asphaug have colleagues at U.C. Santa Cruz that developed a model explaining the far-side geology as a result of the much stronger tides of the early Moon, when it was only about 80,000 miles from Earth. There are other models and other explanations, some of which have already been displaced by data returned from various Moon missions (e.g. the Moon is not made of green cheese).

The next step, as it is with any true scientific hypothesis, is to test it – to find evidence that confirms or disputes the conclusion. Data collected by NASA’s LRO (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) may help, but the real kicker would be to collect rock samples from the far-side. Meanwhile, scientists will do what they usually do – argue – and try to knock down the two moon hypothesis, or replace it with a better one. Eventually, it is likely there will be enough evidence in this case to settle the argument, and science will move on. Splat, indeed.

It’s not much of a mental stretch to understand that a ‘relatively warm and salty ocean’ might be an environment favorable to life. We know of one such place already. The confirmation of a salty ocean on Enceladus also raises the possibility of many more such moons elsewhere in the cosmos, thus upping the probabilities for locating exogenous (non-Earth) life.

Related Posts:
[SciTechStory: Ocean on Enceladus has a built-in heater]
[SciTechStory: Enceladus has at least a sea, possibly life]
[SciTechStory: On the Moon or elsewhere follow the water]

Moon (an unadorned but ill-fitting title), is about Sam Bell, the only human being working a Helium-3 mining station on the dark side of the Moon. His three year contract is almost over, and he’s falling apart. He has a near-fatal accident, which precipitates most of the story. As usual, this spoiler-laden review is written with the assumption that most people reading it have already seen the movie. Moon is out on DVD and Blu-ray. In keeping with the Spartan atmosphere of the movie, here are a few bare bone points:

Moon is science fiction for adults. No slimy aliens. No warp speed. No pyrotechnics. There is blood, as in a bloody mess of injury, illness and a punch in the nose. Otherwise Moon is content to present its story without appealing to hoary sci-fi conventions or the sensibilities of the action-is-everything set.

While it’s not true that a science fiction story with ideas is automatically for adults (think Star Trek TV episodes), Moon explores situations and concepts that are not very accessible for the immature. Loneliness, isolation, crushing routine, confronting oneself (in this case in a novel way), the ending of one’s life; this is not the stuff of rock-em-sock-em science fiction. Then there is the idea of cloning. Cloning is something most people have heard about. None of us have had to confront it. Confronting one’s clone is the core of the movie. It generates some sparks, emotional and intellectual. (Caveats below in ‘Science Spoilers’)

At times, the pace of the movie is almost elegiac. Slow. Reportedly this was on purpose, to depict the mood and circumstances of a man living his routine alone for three years. This is not to say Moon puts the audience to sleep. It’s visually active, as should be expected from a director, Duncan Jones, whose day job was making commercials. However, there are stretches where the visuals dominate the activity of the story – that’s when the pacing slows. Some people will not like it.

Compared to most successful science fiction, Moon was made on a shoestring, a paltry 5 million dollars or so. Give it an award for resourcefulness with minimum resources. It doesn’t look or feel like a cheap movie. However, as inordinately proud as its makers should be about achieving so much with so little, the small budget probably had a cost. The near obsession with making the technical aspects of the film work (no money to throw at problems) may have stolen time and attention from exploiting the contours of the story. There are issues, moments of could-be drama, character points, which are either missed or just plain flat. Not enough to ruin the film by any means, but despite its professional presentation it may fail to engage people very deeply.

Sam Rockwell’s brilliant performance as Sam Bell (more precisely performances) represents something of a tour-de-force in overcoming the technical difficulties of portraying two clones in the same scenes. Why wasn’t he nominated for an Academy Award? For one thing, the Academy people believe a priori that science fiction cannot produce great acting. Perhaps the performance is just a bit too technical, too correct. The Academy tends to reward highly expressive if slightly sloppy acting. Sam Rockwell’s impeccably nuanced and utterly believable clones may leave some people unaffected.

I just noticed that each of the above points begins with praise and ends with a negative. I think that reflects my personal reactions. I recognize that Moon is a well made, interesting and watchable movie. It’s a major achievement compared to the junk that is most science fiction movies these days. I wish there were a dozen sci-fi films this good every year. Yet I can hardly say I’ll be watching it repeatedly. It doesn’t have that kind of depth. Why that is so, for me, is a combination of the director and writers, Duncan Jones and Nathan Parker, artificially rigging too many scenes and paying more attention to technical issues rather than getting all they could out of the dramatic situation. In short, like the visuals of the lunar surface and the artificial surfaces of the station, Moon leaves me a little cold.

Science Spoilers

Compared to many, or most, science fiction stories, Moon is diligent in presenting scientific realism and is believably accurate. In the jargon of the genre, it’s ‘hard science fiction.’ That means, loosely, it cares about a scientific realistic depiction. However, this is a narrative – a story – and its effectiveness doesn’t depend on accuracy. This is as true of science fiction as it is of politics.

It can be safely said that any science fiction story made into a movie will by box-office necessity play more or less fast and loose with scientific realism. Moon is no exception, despite its ‘hard science’ intentions. Here are some examples:

As anyone who googles Helium-3 will discover, it’s true that it is potentially a fuel source for atomic fusion. Atomic fusion isn’t science fiction, although nobody really knows if it will become a reality as a controlled source of energy, or when it might become commercially practical. Mining Helium-3 from the regolith (dust) of the Moon is a fairly old story in science fiction work. Note: It’s science fiction. The amount of 3He on the Moon is truly tiny and vast quantities of regolith would have to be processed under unimaginable conditions. Driving the huge rigs depicted in the movie over real Moon territory is – unlikely. As said, it’s science fiction but plausible.

Why bother having one human being operate the base? If humans are needed at all, why not a small team? Where are the other robots (besides the Hal junior known as GERTY)? Why would a human being have to go out on the lunar surface to retrieve filled canisters of 3He? Could you think of other ways the stuff could be brought back to the base? Quite a few things in Moon happen because the script needed something for a dramatic scene – like the accident that injures Sam 1.

The movie depends on the shock – the audience’s and the character’s shock – discovery of clones. It’s a little too obvious for unobtrusive story telling: Clone confronting clone is so conveniently dramatic. The conceit depends on the clones exploring unknown territory, as if in the society of the time (whatever time that is) clones are unexpected. In all likelihood clones and all the moral, ethical, and practical hoo-ha that goes with them would be a well worn subject in a society that has the capability of using clones as industrial commodities. It’s important for the sense of fresh discovery that the clones in the movie have no clue about the issues surrounding clones. Personally, I think this contributes to a shallow treatment of what is, after all, the main driver of the story.

For example, Moon uses ‘clones’ as a science fiction convention. There are two levels (at least) to cloning: A basic level, which is reproduction of the physical body, and a much more advanced reproduction of mind and mentality. Physical cloning is reasonable even with current scientific limitations. It will not be very long (say a decade or two) before a human being is physically cloned. Even at that, the ‘cloning’ will be as an embryo, not a complete adult body. Cloning the memories, mind, and personality is pure science fiction, no more realistic than transposing a human mind into the body of a living avatar. It’s necessary for this story, but science has basically no clue how to do it. As a matter of speculation, both levels of cloning present myriad problems starting with genetic and metabolic issues and including issues with profound social and moral impact. Moon is not interested in these issues; a missed opportunity perhaps.

When Sam (clone 2) gets into the Helium-3 delivery capsule as a means of…uh, escaping…back to Earth, it looks like he’s going on a picnic. As if a spacesuit and cooler of food would keep him alive, regardless of how the capsule makes atmospheric re-entry and the method of landing. Anything designed for return of inanimate material from space will almost certainly not work for anything living – much less something the size and fragility of a human being. I hear that a sequel may be in the works, something about Sam being persecuted for clonehood in Berlin. As if he made it back unbaked.

The experiment: Guide the final stages of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) rocket into one of the craters and crash it into the surface, hopefully sending a plume of dust into the air that could be analyzed.

The event: On October 9, 2009 the LCROSS Centaur rocket crashed into the crater Cabeus, followed by the LCROSS package itself, which recorded (mostly by spectroscopy) information from the impact plume.

The first results: Just one month after impact, scientists announced that LCROSS did indeed find water. [SciTechStory: On the Moon or elsewhere: Follow the water]

The published results (some presented October 21, 2010 at a joint news conference): Yes, there is more water on the Moon than originally suspected. (Most scientists thought the Moon to be one of the driest places known to man.) In fact, substantial frozen water can be found in locations other than the bottom of deep craters. This is a piece of deduction that comes as something of a surprise. It follows from the measurements of temperatures in the area of the Moon’s south pole. They are the coldest ever directly measured in the solar system. One location registered 27 degrees Kelvin (-246 Centigrade, -411 Fahrenheit), that’s 27 degrees above absolute zero, the point at which atoms no longer move. At 100 degrees Kelvin water is not only frozen but will remain inert for billions of years. In fact, at 100 Kelvin many ‘volatiles’ such as hydrogen, methanol, ammonia, and carbon dioxide will also remain permanently frozen. Scientists believe temperature this cold exists not only in the shadows of craters, but also in the subsurface around the Moon’s south pole, in the lunar permafrost. There may be significant water in the soil even in areas that receive some direct sunlight. This could be up to 30% of the area around the pole.

This is a good thing. Working in somewhat warmer sunlight to extract water, hydrogen, and other substances from the soil of this area could make expeditions, settlement, and eventually commercial utilization possible. If you think about it, how well would machinery work at 100 Kelvin? (If it would work at all.)

For science, the treasure is in the preservation of materials that have been on the Moon – unaltered – for a billion years or more. The spectrographic analyses reveal the presence of many kinds of molecules, including those of hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and nitrogen – the building blocks of life. The layers of material present the geological history of the Moon, perhaps all the way back to the days when it was still volcanically active.

However, there is the problem of fluff. Literally, the ‘soil’ of the crater is fluffy (‘light’, ‘airy’) in the extreme – so fluffy it could swallow astronauts and equipment far worse than quicksand. Is all the soil around the south pole like that? Probably not, but that’s unknown. As reported by Emily Lakdawalla at the press conference this problem was only partially addressed:

One questioner asked how easy it would be to get water out of the material that LCROSS crashed into. [Anthony] Colaprete answered, demurring a bit, saying that other people had thought much more about this problem than he or the other lunar scientists had. But he pointed out that the fluffy material is much easier to deal with than digging into solidly frozen ground; “you just scoop it up.” You can even just warm the surface, he said — the crater was steaming, and all you need to do is cover an area, then warm it up, to release the water.

However, in my conversation with Pete [Schultz] later, I learned that this ease of accessing the water cuts both ways. I asked Pete what would happen if you stuck a shovel into an area of the type that [Igor] Mitrofanov was talking about, a place that is not permanently shadowed, where there is ice-bearing material a few centimeters below the surface. Pete said, first of all, that despite all the results shown today we don’t really know what things look like much below the surface; all the material that got lofted upward was likely from pretty close to the surface, and the higher things went, the closer it was to the surface when it started. It could be a veneer of material, but we don’t know if it’s a veneer or not. It’s quite possible that it goes very, very deep, and if so, it could be very, very old — possibly old enough for these deposits to preserve volcanic gases left over from the later stages of the Moon’s geologic activity. Secondly, he said, this material is probably so delicate, that even sticking a shovel into the ground might warm it enough to make the water and other, even more volatile stuff (like molecular hydrogen and ammonia) go away — just the shovel will warm it up.

[Source: Planetary Society Blog]

I encourage everyone to read Emily Lakdawalla’s Planetary Society blog entry, LCROSS finds lots of water in accessible places at the Moon’s south pole – but we’ll have to tread carefully. It’s a fine piece of science writing that exposes the texture of real scientific enquiry and her infectious enthusiasm for the field. (She was a NASA deputy project manager and holds a master’s degree in geology.)

As you can see, the published results are far richer than the immediate results. In fact, they reveal a much more complex picture of conditions at the Moon’s south pole. Yes there is water, probably in quantities significant for human activity. There’s a lot more, a veritable treasure trove of materials including silver, manganese, and other ‘resources’ that humans like to grab. However, the environment is more difficult (some would say hostile) than expected. The scientists who made the reports are excited by what they found, but they’re also sanguine about accessibility. There is always the problem of something costing more to extract – especially in energy – than it is worth.

Francis McCubbin and team reported in the Online Early Edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) that applying the newest technology to assaying the rock samples returned to Earth from the American Moon expeditions and a Moon meteorite revealed that a variety of samples (mostly apatite, the principle component of the Moon’s material) that a molecular form of water called hydroxyl (OH) can be found in concentrations of 5 to 65 parts per million. Now considering the mass of the Moon, in the aggregate that could be a lot of hydroxyl. However, crushing rock to get hydroxyl, which requires further processing to get water, is not what most people have in mind as a readily available source for people on the Moon.

When the Moon formed, probably from material ejected from Earth after a massive collision with a solar body about the size of Mars, much of the water normally contained in Earth rocks was burned off into space. Some of it became re-integrated with Moon rock as hydroxyl, but as a very minor component. In fact, so minor, that only using the most sensitive recently developed detectors can find it. The detectors available at the time of the American Moon projects were able to identify about 1 part per million, clearly placing the Moon in the ‘very dry’ category.

The new discoveries notwithstanding, it seems a stretch to consider the Moon as place to go for readily usable water. Since human beings and many of the things we need (including a source for rocket fuel) use water, it’s availability on the Moon or anywhere we go in the solar system is an important issue for space exploration.

Water was detected in 40 small craters ranging in size from 2-15 kilometers (1-9 miles) in diameter. Although the total amount of water (in the form of ice) depends on conditions in each crater, it is estimated there could be about 600 million metric tons (1.3 million pounds) of water ice. That’s roughly equivalent to a small pond (dimensions: 10x10x5 meters, 590,000 liters/156,000 gallons). This is not a big number, except if it were all potable (drinking water). Nevertheless, if there’s water in these 40 craters, there’s probably more in other craters. Collectively the Moon may not have enough water for industrial purposes, but it certainly looks like there’s enough for sustaining a human inhabited Moon base.

Of course, little is known about the conditions involved with extracting the water. “Conditions on the ground” have a way of disrupting neat calculations, which is why more test probes and other robotics will be needed to explore these craters.

Water is the key. Wherever there is liquid water, there is a possibility that organic compounds can find a way to combine into living material. It’s happened before (on Earth, of course) and the odds are fair that it could happen elsewhere in the solar system.

Enceladus, the sixth largest moon of Saturn (about 500 km in diameter, one-seventh the size of Earth’s Moon, not very big) was until the Cassini probe’s flybys considered mostly a ball of ice. Then in 2005 Cassini recorded something unexpected, plumes or jets of what appeared to be water rising into the high atmosphere of Enceladus. This was occurring in the south polar region of the moon, in an area already noted for having peculiar striations in ice (called ‘tiger stripes’).

Credit: NASA

Other moons, notably Io in the Jupiter system, are known to be affected by the tidal pull of their nearby giant planet. This tidal pull produces movement in the rock and materials of the moons, which in turn creates stresses and heat. On Io it produces volcanic eruptions, mostly of sulfur. On Enceladus it apparently contributes to geysers mostly of water. That Enceladus has a rocky core is also a product of Cassini instruments. It is now believed that though small, Enceladus has both tidal heating and heating from decay of radioactive material, which together have created enough heat to either melt the core or produce sustainable pockets of molten rock (magma) in the core or mantle. It is this heat which is responsible for the water jets and the presumed seas (or large chambers) of water. This is certainly in the case of the area near the south pole. Whether it is also true for all of Enceladus is unknown.

The composition of the geysers, or jets that send a plume 500 kilometers from the surface, has now been analyzed at close range from the Cassini close flyby of November 2009. The most important point is the discovery of negatively charged water ions, which are typical of water that has been churned as in ocean waves. Another point, observed earlier, was that the jets contain a surprisingly high concentration of dissolved salts, as would be expected from underlying water (seas) that contact core rocky material. There are also traces of organic compounds, including propane, ethane, acetylene and ammonia. While not unusual in water-ice space objects, the presence of organic material (remember, this does not mean that life produced it) does indicate that some of the known compounds used by living things are present on Enceladus.

Putting all the evidence together: It appears that Enceladus has large bodies of liquid water, probably seas. This water is heated, probably on a continuous basis in much the same way the as the volcanic vents in Earth’s oceans. There are organic materials present in the water, as are charged ions – both conditions usually required for the emergence of life. Conclusive evidence for life will probably have to wait for direct contact with Enceladus, probably by landing a robotic probe. That’s a lot of ‘probably’ – confirmation of life elsewhere in the solar system will require unconditional evidence.

On a small butte, not far from the area where the astronauts are training, an old Navajo shepherd and his son have squatted on the lookout side to observe the strange goings-on below. It reminds them of ants tending aphids, these few silvery bugs with a multitude of other creatures scurrying between them, carrying this and that. They recognize vehicles of some kind, but they are huge, ungainly contraptions guaranteed to sink into the sand forever, should they venture into the real desert.

After a while, the activity below stops and the silver things disappear in the grotesque vehicles. A few of the attending workers appear to have spotted the two Navajos and approach them.

The Navajo elder did not speak English, but his son did and acted as interpreter. They soon learned that the workers are people from a faraway place called hoostin. They work for what sounds like an Apache spirit named Naza. They are going to the Moon, they say. At first both Navajos believe this to be a spiritual expression, but after further dialog, they are given to understand that it will be an actual, long journey. Not by horse or foot, but in other shiny vehicles that shoot into the sky.

Never having been to the Moon himself, the old Navajo became very excited. He asked if he could send a message to the moon with the travelers. The people from NASA were instantly aware of the media potential for such a message, so they hurriedly assembled some of the recording equipment they were using for the astronauts. With camera and voice recorder trained on the old man, he spoke animatedly in his native tongue. When the recording was finished, the NASA people asked if his son would provide a translation. He would not.

Later, NASA media personnel found a few people who spoke Navajo on the nearby reservation and asked them to translate. After hearing the tape, every one of them chuckled and refused to translate.

Now in the normal course of things, the media people from NASA should have been suspicious about what the old man had said. But it was not their native tongue, and they could find no one to translate, so they thought – the image and voice of the old man is so charming, nobody will care if they don’t understand. Besides, the deadline for material was fast approaching, and they needed many hours to fill requests for colorful media. So they printed a thousand copies of the tape, and it was sent nearly everywhere in a package of well wishes from around the world.

As events are inclined to unravel, a radio station in Tuba City, Arizona viewed the tape only a day before the launch of the Apollo mission. An old Navajo man, who had worked for the station for nearly twenty years, suddenly broke into gales of laughter. He had to sit down before they asked him what the old Navajo shepherd had said. He chuckled more quietly this time, and told them the translation:

“Watch out for these people. Do not be fooled by their smooth words and silvery bodies; they come to steal your land.”

This is really a not such a huge change in the actual operations of NASA. NASA was already partnered, for all practical purposes, with a handful of its major suppliers. NASA called the shots on specifications for equipment, but the partners set up the channels at the budget level (which is mostly political). The new arrangement changes some of the chairs at the table. NASA won’t set all the specifications, but the big money will still tend to flow in the same channels.

Of course, in the U.S. system of local ‘pork’ – the practice of allocating large Federal installations and project grants to states with politically favorable environments; there will be some losers. Communities in Alabama, Florida, Texas, Utah and elsewhere will find their unemployment rates looking like those for the rest of the country. Most of the adjustments were expected, however, and the space industry in the United States (what was left of it) was already undergoing subtle or not so subtle shifts. The military portion of the space business will remain in the hands of the Pentagon and its business partners (many of whom are same as the NASA business partners). NASA may be dealing with many ‘entrepreneurial’ endeavors, which it previously avoided like the plague, though it will make this as symbolic as possible.

Nevertheless, for the rest of the world looking on, the change in policy actually constitutes something of an experiment. The United States will be the only country that actually seems to expect private initiative – that is, innovative, entrepreneurial companies – to become a prominent part of developing space. In the beginning, it will be to develop a space-worthy vehicle for servicing the International Space Station. Later, it will be space tourism, or whatever. To most of the world, this seems fully in character with the spirit of the United States – business first, last, and in the middle.

Gone are the projects that capture the imagination. No attempts to reach Mars or the Moon. It will be very problematic for any country to mount a space operation of that scale without seriously jeopardizing its economic stability. The Europeans have already decided to commit no such folly. Japan, India, and Brazil would choke on the cost. Russia will have to be willing to risk its treasury and waning technical credibility. China…well, China could probably make the effort. The Chinese will need to make a calculation similar to that made by the United States and Russian during the first race to the Moon – Is there a pressing national prestige at stake? Certainly having the people of the People’s Republic standing on the Moon would make a fine statement. If it can be done.

That’s the problem with manned exploration of outer space in this decade (2010-2020); it’s still a marginal proposition, i.e. risky. The technology hasn’t improved much from what was invented for the space programs of the 1960’s. Yes, we have better computers. There are better materials for constructing spacecraft. However, propulsion systems are still barely controlled explosions that blow enormous quantities of money and materials with each rocket. A cheaper, modular, systematic approach to achieving space from Earth’s enormous gravity well is nowhere to be seen. Until those problems are solved, grand visions of sending even a few people far into space are mostly suicidal.

That’s one of the things making the American commercial space experiment interesting. Is it possible that the wherewithal for projects, which the taxpayer won’t pay and the government can’t manage, can be found among the biggest (and smallest) corporations? Are there enough technical and systems solutions to be found that way? We’ll know in a couple of decades.

Meanwhile, as the ‘manned space flight’ issue spins off into the realms of investment and capital formation, there is the ‘other’ issue: Science in space.

It’s no secret that un-manned space flight, largely for the purpose of doing science, is rewarding both in knowledge and in media coverage. It suits the governments of countries with space ambitions well. There is an almost insatiable desire on the part of fairly large swaths of the world’s population to read, hear and see things about space. Perhaps it is the science fiction culture, or perhaps it is just the ‘pioneer in us all’ but space remains on the romantic end of many people’s thoughts. This can, and often does, translate into at least moderate support for missions like Cassini (to Saturn) or equipment such as the Kepler Space Telescope. Even so, most science oriented space projects are expensive relative to return. They exist at the margin of governmental support. The diminution of money for manned space flight does not mean an increase in money for science. Possibly quite the contrary, as once the economizing begins in one area, it will have a tendency to spread to others.

What will happen to science in space in the absence of the grand visions for human exploration? Perhaps there is something of an inspirational vacuum, an opportunity that something – a country, a company, an idea – will seize? At the start of 2010, let’s be optimistic.