James Van Allen, discoverer of the magnetic belts surrounding the earth that bear his name, has died. He was one of the most (perhaps the most) notable long-time opponents of the manned space program. He never understood that civil space is about much more than science.

Condolences to his family. It is a loss to science, if not informed space policy debate.

Whoa.

No punches got pulled in that one.

Venture forth and fly a balloon with a rocket attached to the end of it in his honor.

It is what it is. I had (and do) hoped that he (and those who share his opinion on the matter) would live at least long enough to see a thriving civil manned space infrastructure. Done not for science, but science going farther (and cheaper) on its coattails than otherwise would have been the case...

"I am a long-time advocate of the application of space technology to civil and military purposes of direct benefit to life on Earth and to our national security." -- James van Allen

Later he mentions "high-capacity telecommunications" and "a revolutionary new global navigational system for all manner of aircraft and many other uses both civil and military".

These are not the words of a science-only advocate. Why distort a guy's views on the day he dies?

They're the words of a guy who sees no purpose for humans in space. I was referring to his views on NASA's mission, which doesn't involve telecommunications or global navigation.

As I said, he was a great scientist. I don't think it churlish to point out, even on the day of his death, that he wasn't such a great space policy analyst.

"I don't think it churlish to point out, even on the day of his death, that he wasn't such a great space policy analyst."

Why, because he disagreed with you? The way you have framed your sentence above, only those who agree with you are "great."

I was referring to his views on NASA's mission, which doesn't involve telecommunications or global navigation.

What you said was "civil space", not NASA's mission. Telecommunications certainly is civil space. Even if you had only meant van Allen's view of NASA's mission, it's still just not true that his vision of it is science-only. He never said that about NASA. He lauded a variety of successful commercial, civil applications of space and there is no evidence that he would mind NASA's involvement in any of it. NASA sometimes is involved, for example in the SeaStar satellite, and he never criticized it.

I don't think it churlish to point out, even on the day of his death, that he wasn't such a great space policy analyst.

That may be, but you shouldn't distort the record.

I think if anything, Rand is approaching Van Allen's legacy with forebearence. Despite Van Allen's considerable accomplishments, his opposition to human space flight is a stain on his record. The study recently published by the Royal Astronomical Society demonstrated that robots uber alles is the Intelligent Design of space; i.e. theology pretending to be science.

I think if anything, Rand is approaching Van Allen's legacy with forebearence.

Forebearance, maybe, but not with veracity.

And it appears we're not agreeing on what constitutes 'civil space...'

There most certainly are telecommunications and imaging. Military space applications (which are mostly specialized versions of the former), though necessary, are by definition, not 'civil.' Even GPS was originally created for the DoD's requirements, but has spun into heavy civillian use.

Despite several false starts like X-20, MOL, and a few Shuttle missions that had a 'spooky' component, the DoD has not seriously made humans in space part of what it does. If VanAllen ever had any thoughts on that potential form of manned space, I've not heard them.

But he never left anyone in doubt about his feelings regarding humans in space, presumably doing primairily science, as part of NASA programs. (Carl Sagan was in a different part of this same camp, as well, seeing manned space flight [presumably] by governments, as having only diplomatic value.)

Most of us see humans as enhancing, or being an absolute requirement for commercial space activities in the fairly near future. If VanAllen had thoughts on that (or if he even took the prospect seriously), I've not heard them either, though I would not have expected any enthusiasm...

But he never left anyone in doubt about his feelings regarding humans in space, presumably doing primairily science, as part of NASA programs.

That middle clause is a false presumption. Van Allen was against human spaceflight, but there was nothing "science-only" about his position.

As I said, I don't know if he even seriously considered human space flight for purely commercial or purely military purposes. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt there.

He certainly *did* speak of what NASA could be doing with the resources used on shuttle and ISS, in terms of unmanned probes.

If I'm making any presumption, it's that, like many others, he fell into the trap of assuming that human space flight necessairily equals *NASA* human space flight, and that it's done primairily for science...

Was he opposed to what the 'alt.space' community eventually wants to do, with it own money? Did he even *consider* that form of 'human space flight?' I don't know, and it's no longer possible to ask.

My suspician is that the idea of private space flight was not even on Van Allen's radar screen and if it were he would have scoffed at it.

I'm taking classes this coming semester in the hall that bears Van Allen's name, and that has housed his office for the last few decades. It's a shame that I won't ever get to meet him in person now.

As I said, I don't know if he even seriously considered human space flight for purely commercial or purely military purposes.

NASA certainly did. It bragged that the space shuttle would be the future of space flight for all purposes: commercial, military, and scientific. Van Allen was completely awake to this consideration, but he noted in his essay "Is Human Spaceflight Obsolete?" that NASA was even more wrong about the first two than the last one.

If you're asking whether he thought that private companies could make money with space tourism, then he didn't address it publicly as far as I know, but I see no evidence that he was opposed. On the contrary...

My suspician is that the idea of private space flight was not even on Van Allen's radar screen and if it were he would have scoffed at it.

Nope. Clark Lindsey asked him about Burt Rutan and he said, "I am among the many admirers of Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne development and consider it an inspiring contribution to aerospace engineering." This is the opposite of a "scoff".

Van Allen did go on to say that he didn't see the relevance of Rutan's flight to science. But that's not because Van Allen's perspective is science-only, it's because Lindsey specifically asked him about science uses of Rutan's vehicle. Ask about science, get an answer about science. ( http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/News/2004/News-2004-08.html )

I was at Iowa City for one of the National Commission on Space hearings way back when. Van Allen dismissed space-settlement promoters and other manned-space enthusiasts as "only wanting to have s3x in space" in his prepared remarks.

Sometimes progress is indeed only achieved through retirements and funerals. He was a great scientist, but I won't miss him.

> Van Allen did go on to say that he didn't see the relevance of Rutan's flight
> to science. But that's not because Van Allen's perspective is science-only, it's
> because Lindsey specifically asked him about science uses of Rutan's vehicle.
> Ask about science, get an answer about science.

If it were that black and white, every scientist should give the same answer. Yet, another scientist (Dan Durda) gave a very different answer.

Van Allen's response was not just "because Lindsey specifically asked him about science"; it was because Van Allen could not imagine "any example of how a human passenger on a suborbital flight could perform scientific observations or on-board experiments that could not be much better performed with automated/commandable equipment on unmanned rockets." Moreover, he dismissed any suggestion by other scientists as not "credible."

This is akin to saying one is unable to imagine any way a human on an air flight could perform scientific observations or experiments that could not be performed better with weather balloons.

Van Allen did not merely state that unmanned rockets could do experiments and observations as well as humans in space, but *better* than humans in space -- in other words, the presence of a human being invariably detracts from an experiment or observation. That is a very strong claim.

There's another side to the question that Van Allen did not address, however. For decades, he and his colleagues argued that unmanned spaceflight was not only better but also cheaper. Spaceship One is significantly cheaper than the unmanned rockets Van Allen talked about, so even if you accept that unmanned rockets are *better* in every case, it would not necessarily follow that they are more cost-effective.

An old maxim says that when a distinguished scientist says something is impossible, he really means that he doesn't know how to do it. The inability of one distinguished scientist to think of a good use for humans in space does not mean that no scientist can think of such uses.