NOW Magazine is so, so wrong about space -

NOW Magazine is so, so wrong about space


Every now and then someone comes along and criticizes space exploration – and inevitably makes a fool of themselves in the process. Add NOW Magazine to the list.

The Toronto alt-weekly trashed both Commander Chris Hadfield and space exploration in general as PR-seeking glory hounds and wastes of money, respectively, in a piece that ran this week.

Hadfield – the first Canadian commander of the International Space Station – of course returned to Earth on Monday evening, but not before posting a video of himself performing David Bowie’s Space Oddity… in space. That capped off a 146-day stint aboard the ISS that was punctuated by frequent tweets, photos and even an Ask Me Anything session on Reddit.

Hadfield’s return couldn’t happen “too soon,” according to the article, since he was wasting so much time conducting public relations for himself and space agencies in general, rather than actual scientific research:

“Everyone else – the other astronauts who spent the term of their mission aboard the ISS as something other than a launchpad for a public speaking career – will shake their heads, embarrassed at the display: mortifying, needy, totally typifying Hadfield’s tour of duty as Canada’s first-ever ISS commander.”

The rest of the article is equally cynical about space exploration and NASA in general, with suggestions that the ISS is less than useful, a big $100-billion box that the agency built just “to examine what it’s like to live in a big box.” Many of the experiments being done up there could be performed on Earth, and space travel has never been about science, but about “adventure” and “dick measuring” (or at least, it was in the ’60s).

Joey “Accordian Guy” Devilla does a great job at rebutting the silly attack on his blog, poignantly pointing out that no, space exploration is indeed about science, and its earthly benefits have been enormous:

“The space program is the tent-pole for the entire scientific enterprise, yielding manifold benefits, in ways we haven’t – and can’t yet – conceive. This is what Semley and NOW Magazione [sic] are pooping on: the seeking of knowledge. The expansion of our potential. The grandest human adventure. But please, be sure to carefully read NOW’s stereo ads!”

The NOW article reminds me a similar piece from the CBC a few years ago, which asked “Is NASA a waste of money?” It’s a question that butted up against Betteridge’s Law, which states that any headline that asks a question can generally be answered with a “no” – in this case, resoundingly so. Host Wendy Mesley questioned the rationale behind crashing a rocket into the moon, just to see what would happen, and even went so far as to interview children on the street for their obviously well-informed opinions on NASA’s inflated budget. The piece looked even sillier when the experiment ultimately revealed traces of water on the moon, a discovery that introduces all sorts of possibilities for further scientific research and space exploration.

NASA’s contributions to society through its various technology transfer programs are almost too numerous to mention, with the agency developing everything from better car tires and safer aircraft to margarine and super soakers. One of its least-known but incredibly important contributions is the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points system, developed to ensure safe food for the manned space missions of the 1960s. HACCP has since become the de facto food safety system worldwide and is directly responsible for preventing an untold of number of deaths and illnesses. That development alone is worth every penny spent on space programs.

The Canadian Space Agency, for its part, also has a mandate to transfer its research and breakthroughs back to Canada and society in general. It currently has at least 20 different technologies, from data compression algorithms to thermal radiators, on offer for licensing. It too is paying off its budget – $488 million this year – in ways that short-sighted critics can’t fathom.

As for Hadfield and his apparent show-boating, the only answer to that is what Devilla said: Good. Commanding a space station isn’t American Idol – you need more than just a pretty smile and a good singing voice to get the job. Hadfield had to work incredibly hard and beat out scores of other highly skilled and trained individuals around the world to get the call, so if he does end up sailing off into a second career of well-paid public speaking gigs, more power to him. He will have earned it all, which is a fine inspiration to anyone, whether they care about space or not.


NOW Magazine is so, so wrong about space

  1. A main problem is that it took longer than expected to finish, so fewer astronauts had to spend more time with maintenance. But it should last longer. I like the VASIMR test best. A future Russian Station will use part of the ISS. They will likely install a cancelled Cenrifugr Accomodations Module. I expect spinning Space Stations to be the best way to hedge against some pan-Earth dangers. Cutting edge NASA R+D spillsover.
    Re: the argument about manufacturing vs resource revenue. An additional argument in favour of manufacturing is most manufacturing is an incremental improvement in product cost/design over last year’s model. Whereas it is often the same resource harvest, though often used more efficiently or lower footprint recycled. So manufacturing is naturally progressive as it is actual R+D a bit.

  2. Mr. Novak, shouldn’t you be saying “John Semley is so, so wrong about space?” The article is clearly marked Op-Ed. We don’t blame Maclean’s Magazine every time we disagree with you.

    • Fair point.

    • He is the online editor of the site. If an editor’s words don’t count towards the magazine, what does?

  3. Let’s admit it, space exploration used to be exciting. The moon landing in 1969. The original goal of landing a man on Mars by 1990 (yes, that was the goal, and many disapointed former NASA employees insist to this day it was achievable.). Those are the things that grab us. Instead we got the obsession over the space shuttle program, then the International Space Station, and an almost total diversion of resources to those programs.
    From a science standpoint, this may or may not have been the right decision. But from a public engagement standpoint, I’m sorry, it is but a shadow of what could have been, and I don’t care how many views Chris Hadfield’s lip-syncing got on YouTube. We’d all find it much more exciting to see Chris Hadfield taking his first steps on Mars. Space exploration captures our imagination. Run-of-the-mill experimentation on a giant satellite does not.

    • What on Earth have you done to help? Just bitched online others aren’t doing enough.

    • Let’s admit it – they’re not exploring space to make your life more exciting. But thanks for the chuckle!

  4. Anyone who thinks space exploration is a waste of time and money should first watch the 2001 BBC production “Space”, which outlines the big picture in six incredible episodes. Without knowledge, strong opinions are rhetorical.