Letter from the Editor

[Richard Harrison, General Editor]

Are we obsessed with discovery?

We often include Letters to the Editor, and, as always, encourage you to write, to comment on issues raised in SRT or simply to make a point, to announce something or to describe an activity or event. For once, though, here is a Letter from the General Editor. Indeed, it raises an issue that you might want to comment on:

It has worried me for some time that in the space science arena we have something of a conflict that is rarely noted. When we select new missions, when we report on missions through the media, even when we pursue our own research, we are often driven by a desire to discover or to announce new discoveries.

So, what is wrong with that? Well, let me give a hypothetical example. Suppose we are selecting a new space mission and we have two candidates on the table. Let’s say that one of these is a new solar physics mission designed to study the Sun at better spatial and temporal resolutions, and with unprecedented spectral observations, that allow advances over previous missions. On the other hand, consider a new mission that will land on Neptune’s moon, Triton. One of these would provide new advances in a welldeveloped, or relatively mature, space science research discipline, increasing our knowledge of our Sun’s atmosphere. The other would be completely new. So, one might be seen as incremental, in terms of scientific advances, and the other as sheer discovery; something completely new. In a sense, one might be poorly noted by the media or politicians, but the other would clearly hit the headlines.

So, how do you choose? They are both of value, of course, and you could argue that they are of equal value, but are the space agencies driven by the discovery missions, those that grab the headlines or even raise a flag on a new destination in the Solar System? Is there a danger that the more established, more mature fields might lose out? Ironically, it is those fields that are established that have built international strengths from earlier missions that have already made the ‘discoveries’ and we do need to support those fields as they mature, and not regard them as of less value or ‘done’. The aim is to advance science rather than to tick boxes.

I have the impression that there are instances where the desire to chase new discoveries has won over the ‘incremental’ missions. In short, we must go into this with our eyes open and recognise that there are, indeed, two types of mission, two types of field, in space science, namely those in a discovery phase and those in a mature phase, and ensure that we do not restrict the latter. In terms of missions, the space agencies need to serve both.

This is nothing new. In the Apollo days, the early missions were the discovery phase and the world watched in awe. For the last few landings the media and the politicians were losing interest. Indeed, despite the wonderful achievement in any of the Saturn V launches, it did seem to reach the point where a successful launch was becoming boring!

"We need to educate the media"

The message for those of us in space science is clear. We need to educate the media, the politicians, even our own space agencies, to ensure that there is a balanced programme. That is something that has to be done from grass-roots level in your individual countries. Assessment of space science missions and achievements must be done with an understanding of the value of both discovery and mature field scenarios.