Finding a future in the stars

As US officials investigate why the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated minutes from landing, Donald MacLeod examines the knock-on effect for European space research

The day before the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated above Texas, the European Space Agency made a little-noted announcement: its Artemis satellite had finally reached geostationary orbit, some 36,000km above the earth. It was a triumph of scientific ingenuity 18 months after a malfunctioning rocket left it stranded in a lower orbit - but it lacked the human drama of the shuttle with seven people aboard and was ignored by the media.

The contrast between manned and unmanned space science could hardly be more stark. In purely scientific terms using robots and instruments wins hands down - you can undertake 10 times as many missions and experiments without a person in the loop, points out Mike Sandford, head of the space instrumentation division at the Rutherford Appleton laboratory in Oxfordshire.

And in the case of Artemis - now beginning a potentially profitable 10-year life as a telecommunications satellite - ESA scientists on the ground were able to re-programme a tiny ion thruster to propel it into the correct orbit at a snail-like rate of 15km a day. The agency said it was "a bit like using an outboard motor to drive an ocean liner".

Britain's £178m space science programme - nearly £100m of it with the ESA - is geared purely to unmanned exploration of the planets, as well as using space as a platform to view the earth or the universe beyond the solar system. So while there is sadness at the American disaster there will not be immediate knock-on effects on UK research.

In late May, for instance, a Mars mission (launched by a Russian Soyuz rocket) will contain the UK's Beagle 2 explorer to investigate the surface of the red planet, and on July 1 the Cassini Huygens craft is due to rendezvous with Saturn at the end of a journey begun in October 1997.

In the soul-searching after the Columbia crash, one senior American scientist has said the calibre of science performed on board the shuttle did not justify the costs. Professor Robert L Park, of the University of Maryland, said the onboard experiments were "junior-high science".

The crash will lead to a rethink on manned space science, believes Andrew Coates, of University College London, and head of space plasma physics at the Mullard space laboratory. "Human space flight isn't worth it. It does inspire kids, which is a good thing to do, but we do need to develop cheaper launch systems. Then it might be cost-effective."

But all the work on telecommunications, weather systems, observing the earth's climate and geology and using telescopes like Hubble to look deeper into the universe were best done by unmanned flights, he said.

Mr Sandford said that apart from national pride and inspiration there was also the question of space travel. "If your goal is to travel through the solar system - that is a goal for the human race - then you have to get the technology right for handling people."