Editorial

Like many of us, I utilize a web site that allows me to quickly scan news and feature article headlines from different sources so I can decide (yes, Mr. Internet, we have brains and can think for ourselves) what stories I want to read. One of these headlines was a link to a recent Space.com article called International Space Station: Boon to Science or Boondoggle?

The article details a split among the scientific community over funding for the station. On the pro-station side, especially within NASA that is, of course, working with the other 16 countries on the project, supporters believe that there will be incredible research opportunities for astronauts, cosmonauts, and scientists aboard the ISS.

On the anti-station side are folks who fear that the now $60 billion project (the original mandate for the station by Ronald Reagan was for only $8 billion) is pulling away money from more important endeavors such as exploring Mars or Jupiter's moon, Europa. And, of course, they point fingers at our friends, the Russians, for slowing down progress on completing the station.

Lurking in the background, are those people who don't want to support any NASA programs. These are the folks who believe we should concentrate all our scientific research right here at home, feeding the hungry, and curing diseases. Let me, quickly, state that I firmly believe space science will probably be one of the bigger contributors to solving these "home-grown" problems. In fact, perhaps one day, I will wax philosophical on why we have to get off this planet in order to survive.

But I digress.

Certainly, the station is costing a lot of money to build, and will cost even more to maintain. Certainly, exploring Mars, Europa, and any number of our havenly neighbors are worthy goals.

I also must point out that I learned that, once operational in 2005, the ISS will only be in service for 10 years. Now, that surprised me. Still, space science has always benefitted Earth-bound humans in ways NASA, Congress, or anyone else could have foreseen. Proponents of the station say the same thing now, and I'm inclined to agree. So much of the technology we use in our daily lives, along with medical advances and more, are the direct result of Kennedy's original mandate to send us to the Moon. Can Reagan's legacy reach beyond "Star Wars" missile programs? Why not?

I could, and may yet, make a case that all of NASA's projects should be supported and funded -- within reason, of course. But it is a science fiction and fantasy writer and editor that I make these comments.

Think of all the science fiction, and even fantasy, that would not have been written if we had not leapt into space in the first place. The language of science fiction would be poorer if we didn't know more about the Moon, the space beyond our own atmosphere, the Solar System at large, or the space beyond it. By having gone to the moon, and by learning more about space in general, the science fiction we write today is richer, more real, than the science fiction written by our predecessors. Mind you, their stories were no less important, enjoyable, or meaningful, but when you read them, don't you chuckle to yourself about what they got wrong?

Of course, readers will chuckle about our notions of science within science fiction a generation or two from now, I assure you.

Even for fantasy, space science opens the imagination. I haven't read too much of it, but there must be (and if not, I'll start writing one) stories that take place in space, but have a fantasy or magical quality to them. Patricia Kennealy-Morrison's books come to mind, but even they are rooted more in science than fantasy once you read between the lines.

The bottom line is that supporting the International Space Station is important for anyone who looks to the future. Personally, I would like NASA, or the ESA, or Russia, to find some way to keep the ISS up for decades, not just 10 years. I would love to see it turned into a space station proper, a space-based launching pad for missions to Mars, Jupiter's moons, and beyond.