Jupiter under fire...
This story is interesting for several reasons. First, it was an aussie amateur astronomer who spotted with his crude telescope a dark spot on Jupiter's surface. It was him who informed the scientists, who gathered more evidente that the planed has indeed suffered an impact-event of a huge cosmic object. Something that has happened before in our planet, with dire consequences. Something that might still happen. Something that would be likely to happen more often if the gas giant we call Jupiter wasn't behind us, his strong gravitational field acting like a planet-size vacuum cleaner.Of course, every topic concerning science generates a lot of uproar. The 1969's expedition to the Moon, the possibility of a new lunar expedition, or even a trip to Mars. The ISS. And, in our very land, things like CERN's Large Haldron Collider. For example. All these scientific goals require one thing: money. A shitload of money. And whenever there is some media coverages on these issues (the space program is probably the best example), be it for a new discovery or something, there is a lot of enthusiasm among some people - and a symmetric reaction among many others. The most common - and ridicule - argument is that such an ammount of money could take many people out of poverty and misery. As if giving them money alone would help (isn't that what we've been doing for years in Africa, with the known results?). Others hold to their religious beliefs and unjustified fears to curse the projects - like some did when CERN activated the LHC, fearing that the accelerator would generate a black hole large enough to swallow the planet. There are many things in the world that need to be fixed, there aren't much people interested in that (unless they can gain something with it), and science cannot stop because of that. The LHC or an expedition to the moon might seem a waste of money, but things like these cannot be considered for their face value alone. The research necessary to make it happen ends up bringing many useful technologies, some of which are not even used in their original goals. And our knowledge goes a bit furter. Can't think of better goals to fry money on making atoms smack each other or to put people living on the Moon's surface.
I'll leave you now with a comment to the new I've linked above, from a reader named Dave, who gives a similar perspective:
Decades ago, Arthur C. Clarke (of “2001″ fame and, uh, communications satellite fame) called for the creation of an international network of observatories to scan the skies for possible impact objects.
Alas, no government is willing to put the resources into a project like this to make it truly effective. NASA actually does an admirable job with a piddling budget (and, for the past 8 years, hack republican administrators who supressed any research that might “contradict” administration opinions).
The chance to save us from armageddon is just one small benefit of spending on space exploration. The technological advances it’s given us, and the perspective that we’re all in the same boat on this pale blue dot whizzing through space far outweigh the pocket change we throw at it.
Before anyone responds by saying “yeah, but that ‘pocket change’ could feed thousands,” let me just remind everyone that if we had spent the money that Vietnam cost us on NASA, we could have had moon bases, space stations, interplanetary expeditions, and lord knows what else… by 1980. I agree with the poster above… we’re much more likely to destroy ourselves through war, pollution, and other general idiocy long before any asteroid gets a decent shot at us!
Let’s hope I’m wrong…
