years ago, when a change becomes unstoppable, even if it is not perceived until the
moment it materializes. For example, the idea of seeing the ISS abandoned arouses
in many people a perception of defeat, a sort of abdication of the human aspiration
to travel in space, while in all probability such an attitude instead reveals a global
error of assessment – that is, an inability to perceive the actual tipping point.
Former astronaut Mark Kelly, who has carried out four missions on the ISS,
pointed out in an editorial in the New York Times that it would be a serious mistake
to leave the space station: “It is not perfect and it is not designed to last forever,
but what it offers to nations is remarkable: an opportunity to collaborate on shared
scientific objectives, largely free from politics and almost completely free from
the influences of our planet”.
26
However, in Kelly’s words there is an implicit,
pragmatic recognition of the political importance of space to different nations. In
fact, the former astronaut goes on to list a series of American industries that he
thinks would be damaged by the closure of the station. He concludes by arguing:
Other countries will undoubtedly fill the void left by the American withdrawal from the ISS, especially China and Russia, countries we consider
significant rivals. Not only will these countries reap the economic and political benefits of being leaders in space, but they could also change the direction of the world’s collective efforts in a way hostile to American interests
and values.
27
Clearly, in the 54 days spent in space, Kelly did not consider the Russian colleagues he worked with as representatives of a dangerous rival nation. Yet on
Earth, he has been supporting protectionist values, stimulating American pride in
the ISS in order to prevent the decline of American supremacy in space.
The same concerns arose in 2011 when NASA retired the shuttle and purchased
seats on the Russian capsules to fly its astronauts. Yet less than ten years later, the
American company SpaceX dominates the market for commercial launches, US
astronauts went back into space onboard an American spaceship from Cape
Canaveral, and finally, the Pentagon’s X-37B space drone remains an enigma for
allies and adversaries alike.
Since the Boeing Corporation and SpaceX are building on behalf of NASA
28
modern spaceships for Earth and lunar orbits, it seems excessive to say that US
space supremacy is in danger if the ISS shuts down, just as was said when the
shuttle stopped taking off from Cape Canaveral.
The crucial point is to understand if the new space program can concretely be a
prelude to the return of humans to the Moon or even to a future landing on Mars.
26
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/opinion/international-space-station.html.
27
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/opinion/international-space-station.html.
28
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a15072750/spacex-boeing-race-orbitnasa-iss-dragon-2-starliner/.
Mars: Next Stop? 127
moment it materializes. For example, the idea of seeing the ISS abandoned arouses
in many people a perception of defeat, a sort of abdication of the human aspiration
to travel in space, while in all probability such an attitude instead reveals a global
error of assessment – that is, an inability to perceive the actual tipping point.
Former astronaut Mark Kelly, who has carried out four missions on the ISS,
pointed out in an editorial in the New York Times that it would be a serious mistake
to leave the space station: “It is not perfect and it is not designed to last forever,
but what it offers to nations is remarkable: an opportunity to collaborate on shared
scientific objectives, largely free from politics and almost completely free from
the influences of our planet”.
26
However, in Kelly’s words there is an implicit,
pragmatic recognition of the political importance of space to different nations. In
fact, the former astronaut goes on to list a series of American industries that he
thinks would be damaged by the closure of the station. He concludes by arguing:
Other countries will undoubtedly fill the void left by the American withdrawal from the ISS, especially China and Russia, countries we consider
significant rivals. Not only will these countries reap the economic and political benefits of being leaders in space, but they could also change the direction of the world’s collective efforts in a way hostile to American interests
and values.
27
Clearly, in the 54 days spent in space, Kelly did not consider the Russian colleagues he worked with as representatives of a dangerous rival nation. Yet on
Earth, he has been supporting protectionist values, stimulating American pride in
the ISS in order to prevent the decline of American supremacy in space.
The same concerns arose in 2011 when NASA retired the shuttle and purchased
seats on the Russian capsules to fly its astronauts. Yet less than ten years later, the
American company SpaceX dominates the market for commercial launches, US
astronauts went back into space onboard an American spaceship from Cape
Canaveral, and finally, the Pentagon’s X-37B space drone remains an enigma for
allies and adversaries alike.
Since the Boeing Corporation and SpaceX are building on behalf of NASA
28
modern spaceships for Earth and lunar orbits, it seems excessive to say that US
space supremacy is in danger if the ISS shuts down, just as was said when the
shuttle stopped taking off from Cape Canaveral.
The crucial point is to understand if the new space program can concretely be a
prelude to the return of humans to the Moon or even to a future landing on Mars.
26
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/opinion/international-space-station.html.
27
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/07/opinion/international-space-station.html.
28
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a15072750/spacex-boeing-race-orbitnasa-iss-dragon-2-starliner/.
Mars: Next Stop? 127