After the tragic destruction of the space shuttle Columbia on Feb. 1, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is faced with a difficult question-one that might be as challenging as solving the puzzle of the countless pieces of tagged rubble tweezed from dusty Texan farmland. In the past, NASA officials have cited scientific value as the principal justification for manned missions. A considerable number of scientists, however, challenge the necessity of sending man into space, and the Columbia disaster has amplified their voices.

According to The New York Times, NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe has dismissed the opposition, citing the success of the international space station. "[The station] is the most extraordinary scientific and research capacity that collectively this many countries could ever have dreamed up doing. [...] It's just an astonishing capability and one that you simply can't duplicate here on Earth," said O'Keefe.

Nate Powell, Physics major

"I personally do not think NASA should cut funding for manned space missions. I realize this is a difficult claim to make when there are so many government programs that need funding, and in some ways so little money to go around, and I would have a hard time justifying taking money away from such potential uses as broader health care coverage, but I think the space program is important in many ways. It explores new frontiers beyond our world and this exploration yields new technologies that can greatly improve life back here. Modern technology may have caused a great many difficulties in this world, particularly with nuclear bombs and the environment, but it also has solved a great many problems. It allows us to cultivate farms with far fewer people than have ever been needed before, it allows us to communicate over vast distances, and share information conveniently, and medical advances are consistently increasing the span and quality of life of those to whom they are available. While the current distribution of these benefits is not exactly equitable, eventually they will become more widespread, and many technological advances, although I can't personally name any, have come from the science discovered for the space program.

"In addition, I think it is very important to keep funding the manned space program for reasons articulated by Richard Gott in his book 'Time Travel In Einstein's Universe.' He states that if we cut funding now, and essentially put away the space program for later, the odds are that we may never again bring it up. As a general rule, I have found it much harder to regain anything than to retain it, and the kind of knowledge and experience required to send men and women into space is no exception. If we cut the space program, it is likely that we may never have the resources to ever start it up again, and I personally find the prospect of never again exploring space to be a sad one, and one that I would not like to see realized."

Norton Starr, professor of mathematics

"I don't care who trims funding for manned space flights, NASA or Congress, but wish such funding would be eliminated for a decade or so. Instead, I would like to see more pure and applied scientific experimentation carried out via space shots. Taking a leaf from the current President, perhaps we should study matters at length before spending any more money on manned space travel-the risk- reward ratio seems unappealing."

Ryan Yeung, American Studies and Economics major

"Traditionally, the role of government has been to fund goods and services when there has been a market failure. A market failure occurs when the private market fails to provide sufficient amounts of good and services whose benefits are shared by all citizens, such as a street light. I'm not sure the space program produces the same benefits to society, called externalities, that a street light does. Most technology transferred from the space program, such as satellite radio and satellite television, is the offshoot of unmanned space missions. However, the true benefits of manned space exploration can not be measured in GDP. They are measured in the pride and unity of a nation, and the adventure that is exploration."

Neal Erickson, five college astronomy research professor

"This question is politics versus what's best for science. And science surely doesn't need manned missions. I was very pleased with the results of the unmanned missions that NASA completed a few years ago-they were fantastic. Man in space isn't necessary anymore because the robot technology that is available is more effective and less costly. But NASA's funding doesn't depend on the scientific point of view. There has to be a political will behind it, and Congress is devoted to manned missions. I don't think anybody is excited about space when there aren't men involved."

We invite your RESPONSE

If the United States were to reinstitute the draft, should women be included?

send 100 words to astudent@amherst.edu by March 10