...by James Cameron, who is guest-editing a special issue of Wired this month.

As we mourned the Columbia astronauts, they were frequently referred to in media as "explorers." The real tragedy of that accident is that they were not explorers. They were boldly going where hundreds had gone before. They were researchers working in a lab that happened to be in orbit. Did their research have value? Of course, but only in the sense that all science has value. Was it worth the price they paid? Not by a light-year. Did they die in vain? Only if we don't learn and take to heart a lesson - not that foam can peel off the external tank and damage the reinforced carbon leading edge of the wing, or even that NASA culture needs to change. But that even after four decades of technical progress, travel to and from space is inherently dangerous, so only go there for a good reason.

In my mind, there is only one reason good enough, and that's exploration. That means going somewhere, not in circles. But actually going somewhere, like the moon or Mars, is considered too risky and expensive. Those high school touchdowns scored by Neil and Buzz and the others are trophies that have been gathering dust, but we still fantasize that we are the same team we were then. The reality is that we have become risk averse, willing to coast on the momentum of past accomplishments. If we study the problem, build tools and systems, and so on for the next 50 years, we can jolly ourselves along that we are still those clever Americans who put a man on the moon back when was that again?

If the next step is to send humans to Mars, then we must reexamine our culture of averting risk and assigning blame. We don't need any miracle breakthroughs in technology. The techniques are well understood. Sure, it takes money, but distributed over time it doesn't require any more than we're spending now. What is lacking is the will, the mandate, and the sense of purpose.

I strongly recommend everyone who reads this blog to buy this issue of "Wired" and read the entire "exploration" special section - especially the article "To Hell and Back" about inventor and cave diver Bill Stone. Among other things, he is working on Europa hydrobot, but his mentality with regard to personal risk I consider the most important read of the whole magazine.

"In my mind, there is only one reason good enough, and that's exploration. "

Thats apparently not a very open mind then.

I'm even more close minded then... I say 'settlement' with everything else derivative from that...

...but I also see backyard astronomers getting there mini-hubbles piggybacked on SpaceShipToOrbitOne.

So perhaps, 'wildly closed minded' or 'perversely closed minded' or...

> The real tragedy of that accident is that they were not explorers. They
> were boldly going where hundreds had gone before.

Cameron's definition of exploration is not very well thought through. Columbus, Marco Polo, and Lewis and Clark made history going boldly where hundreds, thousands, or millions had gone before.

If "space is inherently dangerous, so only go there for a good reason" -- and the only good reason is to be the *first* human to go some place, then why did Cameron want to go to Mir?

What about the oceans? Should filmakers be allowed to make "inherently dangerous" dives on the Titanic without "good reason"?

These responses to the James Cameron Wired opinion piece seem overly critical to me. I think Cameron hit the nail on the head. We really haven't been doing any human "exploration" of space since the days of Apollo. I'm involved with the Mars Exploration Rover mission and while I'm thrilled to death with the successes of Spirit and Opportunity, I am always mindful of how much more could be accomplished by human explorers. It really is time to "fish or cut bait" as it were. I don't know that the Moon/Mars initiative that Pres. Bush has proposed is the best way to go about doing things, but it is a start. My hope is that with private companies starting their own space efforts and with some pressure from emerging space powers such as China and India, we might have a real, robust space program again.

Screw exploration. We know enough ebout space to live there right now. We *must* grow orbital tourism ASAP. It's the only thing that organically can grow.

My logic is this:

a) there's probably going to be no really new technologies down the pipe to reduce manned spaceflight in the next 20 years

b) given this the cost of spaceflight can only come down via increased growth of launch rate

c) the most likely reason for increased growth rate is if lots of people want to go

Most people will not want to stay, they will only want to visit (ties due to jobs, family etc. etc.)

Hence tourism.

I would argue that tourism can and will lead to settlement, both indirectly (by reducing cost of launch) and directly (e.g. who will work in the hotels?).

Exploration is a crock, but might support a very, very small number of people up there. Science is a crock, but might support a very small number of people up there. Settlement is a crock right now.

Tourism is probably the only thing that can work.