# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Neil deGrasse Tyson - We Stopped Dreaming (Episode 1)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Help Save our Oceans! : A Groundbreaking Undersea Expedition with Fabien Cousteau

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
I am convinced that if NASA were to disappear tomorrow, if we never put up another Hubble Space Telescope, never put another human being in space, people in this country would be profoundly distraught. Americans would feel that we had lost something that matters, that our best days were behind us, and they would feel themselves somehow diminished. Yet I think most would be unable to say why.

There are many good reasons to continue to explore space, which most Americans have undoubtedly heard. Some have been debated in public policy circles and evaluated on the basis of financial investment. In announcing his commitment to send the country back to the moon and, later, on to Mars, President Bush quite correctly said that we do it for purposes of scientific discovery, economic benefit, and national security. I've given speeches on each of those topics, and these reasons can be clearly shown to be true. And presidential science advisor Jack Marburger has said that questions about space exploration come down to whether we want to bring the solar system within mankind's sphere of economic influence. I think that is extraordinarily well put.

But these are not reasons that would make Americans miss our space program. They are merely the reasons we are most comfortable discussing. I think of them as "acceptable reasons" because they can be logically defended. When we contemplate committing large sums of money to a project, we tend to dismiss reasons that are emotional or value-driven or can't be captured on a spreadsheet. But in space exploration those are the reasons-what I think of as "real reasons"-that are the most important.

When Charles Lindbergh was asked why he crossed the Atlantic, he never once answered that he wanted to win the $25,000 that New York City hotel owner Raymond Orteig offered for the first nonstop aircraft flight between New York and Paris. Burt Rutan and his backer, Paul Allen, certainly didn't develop a private spacecraft to win the Ansari X-Prize for the $10 million in prize money. They spent twice as much as they made. Sergei Korolev and the team that launched Sputnik were not tasked by their government to be the first to launch an artificial satellite; they had to fight for the honor and the resources to do it.

I think we all know why people strive to accomplish such things. They do so for reasons that are intuitive and compelling to all of us but that are not necessarily logical. They're exactly the opposite of acceptable reasons, which are eminently logical but neither intuitive nor emotionally compelling.

First, most of us want to be, both as individuals and as societies, the first or the best in some activity. We want to stand out. This behavior is rooted in our genes. We are today the descendants of people who survived by outperforming others. Without question that drive can be carried to an unhealthy extreme; we've all seen more wars than we like. But just because the trait can be taken too far doesn't mean that we can do without it completely.

A second reason is curiosity. Who among us has not had the urge to know what's over the next hill? What child has not been drawn to explore beyond the familiar streets of the neighborhood?

Finally, we humans have, since the earliest civilizations, built monuments. We want to leave something behind to show the next generation, or the generations after that, what we did with our time here. This is the impulse behind cathedrals and pyramids, art galleries and museums.

Cathedral builders would understand what I mean by real reasons. The monuments they erected to the awe and mystery of their God required a far greater percentage of their gross domestic product than we will ever put into the space business, but we look back across 600 or 800 years of time, and we are still awed by what the builders accomplished. Those buildings, therefore, also stand as monuments to the builders.

The return the cathedral builders made on their investment could not have been summarized in a cost/benefit analysis. They began to develop civil engineering, the core discipline for any society if it wishes to have anything more than thatched huts. They gained societal advantages that were probably even more important than learning how to build walls and roofs. For example, they learned to embrace deferred gratification, not just on an individual level, where it is a crucial element of maturity, but on a societal level, where it is equally vital. The people who started the cathedrals didn't live to finish them. The society as a whole had to be dedicated to the completion of those projects. We owe Western civilization as we know it today to that kind of thinking: the ability to have a constancy of purpose across years and decades.

It is my contention that the products of our space program are today's cathedrals. The space program satisfies the desire to compete, but in a safe and productive manner, rather than in a harmful one. It speaks abundantly to our sense of human curiosity, of wonder and awe at the unknown. Who can watch people assembling the greatest engineering project in the history of mankind-the International Space Station-and not wonder at the ability of people to conceive and to execute the project? And it also addresses our need for leaving something for future generations.

Of course the space program also addresses the acceptable reasons, and in the end this is imperative. Societies will not succeed in the long run if they place their resources and their efforts in enterprises that, for whatever reason, don't provide concrete value. But I believe that projects done for the real reasons that motivate humans also serve the acceptable reasons. In that sense, the value of space exploration really is in its spinoffs, as many have argued. But it's not in spinoffs like Teflon and Tang and Velcro, as the public is so often told-and which in fact did not come from the space program. And it's not in spinoffs in the form of better heart monitors or cheaper prices for liquid oxygen for hospitals, although the space program's huge demand for liquid oxygen spurred fundamental improvements in the production and handling of this volatile substance. The real spinoffs are, just as they were for cathedral builders, more fundamental.

Anyone who wants to build spacecraft, who wants to be a subcontractor, or who even wants to supply bolts and screws to the space industry must work to a higher level of precision than human beings had to do before the space industry came along. And that standard has influenced our entire industrial base, and therefore our economy.

As for national security, what is the value to the United States of being involved in enterprises which lift up human hearts everywhere? What is the value to the United States of being a leader in such efforts, in projects in which every technologically capable nation wants to take part? The greatest strategy for national security, more effective than having better guns and bombs than everyone else, is being a nation that does the kinds of things that make others want to do them with us.

What do you have to do, how do you have to behave, to do space projects? You have to value hard work. You have to live by excellence, or die from the lack of it. You have to understand and practice both leadership and followership. You have to build partnerships; leaders need partners and allies, as well as followers.

You have to accept the challenge of the unknown, knowing that you might fail, and to do so not without fear but with mastery of fear and a determination to go anyway. You have to defer gratification because we work on things that not all of us will live to see-and we know it.

We now believe that 95 percent of the universe consists of dark energy or dark matter, terms for things that we as yet know nothing about. Is it even conceivable that one day we won't learn to harness them? As cavemen learned to harness fire, as people two centuries ago learned to harness electricity, we will learn to harness these new things. It was just a few years ago that we confirmed the existence of dark matter, and we would not have done so without the space program. What is the value of knowledge like that? I cannot begin to guess. A thousand years from now there will be human beings who don't have to guess; they will know, and they will know we gave this to them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ambition, curiosity, and a reason the NASA Administrator admits has nothing to do with economic benefit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun.

Early space activities were dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union. However, as time went by, Europe and Japan also learned how to build their own satellites and rockets. Today, countries such as China, India, South Korea, Israel and Brazil are developing their own space industries.

During the last 60 years, unmanned probes have been sent towards all of the planets in the Solar System, as well as many satellites, asteroids and comets. Spacecraft have soft-landed on half a dozen worlds, while rovers have driven over the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. The Sun has also been explored in great detail by a fleet of spacecraft.

Many space observatories, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, have been launched to look at the distant Universe. They have sent back some amazing pictures taken in visible light. But they can also observe stars and galaxies at wavelengths that are invisible to human eyes - radio, infrared, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays. The flood of discoveries has changed the way we look at the Universe.

More than 500 people have also flown in space since Yuri Gagarin paved the way in 1961. 20 people have travelled to the Moon and 12 of them have walked on the Moon. Space stations have been built, and astronauts have learned to live and work in space for many months, or even years.

Last modified 26 January 2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For centuries, people dreamed about leaving Earth and travelling to other worlds. Then, in 1957, the Soviet Union made the first small step into space by launching a small satellite, called Sputnik. The Space Age had begun. Early space activities were dominated by the United States and the Soviet Union.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many people dismiss space exploration as a luxury, but this attitude is not only wrong, it's dangerous.

Satellite technology has revolutionized our planet in almost every way. Weather satellites help us track developing hurricanes, allowing meteorologists to warn people days in advance. That saves thousands of lives. Communication satellites allow us instant access to information all over the world using radio, television, and phones. Some people credit in part the fall of the Soviet Union to ease of information access; the people in those countries saw what the rest of the world was doing, accelerating the process of reform. GPS satellites allow us to track ships, airplanes, and even people who may be lost or in need of help.

Reaching outward into space has helped us in other ways as well. A fleet of satellites (YOHKOH, SOHO and others) study the Sun so that we can better understand it. Huge solar eruptions can damage satellites and cause power blackouts (like in Quebec in 1989), and the Sun directly influences our environment. Understanding the Sun is a critical use of space technology.

Exploring the other planets helps us put the Earth in context. Why is Mars dry, cold, nearly airless, and dead? Why is Venus covered in thick clouds and suffering a runaway greenhouse effect? Why do hurricanes on Jupiter last for centuries? All these questions (and thousands more) help us understand our own planet, and allow us to see how humans are affecting it. Certainly understanding asteroids is important- we need to learn how to move them in case one is heading our way; an asteroid impact could wipe out all humans on Earth, so our very future is tied to space travel.

There are simple technological reasons for space exploration as well. Some estimates say that for every dollar invested in the Apollo program, more than 20 have been returned. That's a huge payoff! Computer tech, communications, rocketry, and many other fields have benefited hugely from space exploration.

And there is one more reason. Humans strive to learn, to explore, to push boundaries, to see what's around the corner. This is in many ways a fundamental need, and space exploration is a fantastic manifestation of that. The Universe is huge, beautiful, mysterious, and, ultimately, knowable. Even if the other reasons were not there, this alone should be enough for us pursue our exploration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Many people dismiss space exploration as a luxury, but this attitude is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Satellite technology has revolutionized our planet in almost every way. Weather satellites help us track developing hurricanes, allowing meteorologists to warn people days in advance. That saves thousands of lives.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: Amitai Etzioni is professor of international relations and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University.

Story highlights

While space travel still gets a lot of attention, not enough attention has been accorded to a major new expedition to the deepest point in the ocean, some 7 miles deep - the recent journey by James Cameron, on behalf of National Geographic.

The cover story of the prestigious journal Foreign Affairs lays out the "Case for Space." "60 Minutes" recently ran a story about the dire effects on Florida's space industry of scaling back our extraterrestrial endeavors. Newt Gingrich gained attention earlier this year by calling for building a permanent base on the moon. And President Obama has talked of preparing to eventually send Americans into orbit around Mars.

Actually, there are very good reasons to stop spending billions of dollars on manned space missions, to explore space in ways that are safer and much less costly, and to grant much higher priority to other scientific and engineering mega-projects, the oceans in particular.

The main costs of space exploration arise from the fact that we are set on sending humans, rather than robots. The reasons such efforts drive up the costs include: A human needs a return ticket, while a robot can go one way. Space vehicles for humans must be made safe, while we can risk a bunch of robots without losing sleep. Robots are much easier to feed, experience little trouble when subject to prolonged weightlessness, and are much easier to shield from radiation. And they can do most tasks humans can.

British astronomer royal Martin Rees writes, "I think that the practical case (for manned flights) gets weaker and weaker with every advance in robotics and miniaturization. It's hard to see any particular reason or purpose in going back to the moon or indeed sending people into space at all." Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg calls manned missions "an incredible waste of money" and argues that "for the cost of putting a few people on a very limited set of locations on Mars we could have dozens of unmanned, robotic missions roving all over Mars."

The main argument for using humans is a public relations one. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it in Foreign Affairs, "China's latest space proclamations could conceivably produce another 'Sputnik moment' for the United States, spurring the country into action after a relatively fallow period in its space efforts." Also, astronauts are said to inspire our youth to become scientists and explorers. However, it is far from established that we cannot achieve the same effects by making other R&D projects our main priority.

Take the oceans, about which we know much less than the dark side of the moon. Ninety percent of the ocean floor has not even been charted, and while we have been to the moon, the technology to explore the ocean's floors is still being developed. For example, a permanent partially-submerged sea exploration station, called the SeaOrbiter, is currently in development.

The oceans play a major role in controlling our climate. But we have not learned yet how to use them to cool us off rather than contribute to our overheating. Ocean organisms are said to hold the promise of cures for an array of diseases. An examination of the unique eyes of skate (ray fish) led to advances in combating blindness, the horseshoe crab was crucial in developing a test for bacterial contamination, and sea urchins helped in the development of test-tube fertilization.

The toadfish's ability to regenerate its central nervous system is of much interest to neuroscientists. A recent Japanese study concluded that the drug eribulin, which was derived from sea sponges, is effective in combating breast, colon, and urinary cancer.

Given the looming crisis of water scarcity, we badly need more efficient and less costly methods to desalinate ocean water. By 2025, 1.8 billion people are expected to suffer from severe water scarcity, with that number jumping to 3.9 billion by 2050-well over a third of the entire global population.

If the oceans do not make your heart go pitter-patter, how about engineering a bacteria that eats carbon dioxide - and thus helps protect the world from overheating - AND excretes fuel which will allow us to drive our cars and machines, without oil? I cannot find any evidence that people young or old, Americans or citizens of other nations, would be less impressed or less inspired with such a breakthrough than with one more set of photos of a far away galaxy or a whole Milky Way full of stars.

Space enthusiasts claim that space exploration has generated major spinoffs for our life right here on Earth. Tyson quotes President Obama suggesting that the Apollo mission "produced technologies that have improved kidney dialysis and water purification systems; sensors to test for hazardous gases; energy-saving building materials; and fire-resistant fabrics used by firefighters and soldiers," and adds a few more innovations to the list: "digital imaging, implantable pacemakers, collision-avoidance systems on aircraft, precision LASIK eye surgery, and global positioning satellites."

Of course, the space environment is radically different from the one on Earth. Materials and technologies that are suited for a vacuum, zero gravity, and extreme cold and heat are not the ones we typically can use on Earth.

Opinion: Gingrich's moon colony lost in the laughter

Elias Carayannis, professor of Science, Technology, Innovation and Entrepreneurship at The George Washington University, notes "government agencies - particularly those such as the National Space and Aeronautics Administration that are continually pressured to justify their activities - tout the spin-off value of their investments in sometimes quite extravagant claims." Products such as Velcro, Tang, and Teflon that are often cited as spinoffs of space technology did not actually result from the space program.

Space promoters tell us, once every few months, that there are signs that there might be or has been water on one of the planets that might make "life" possible. I wonder if some of those who hear these reports interpret them to mean that we expect to find a civilization out there, one that we could ally with, say against the Chinese. What scientists are really talking about is organic material, the kind found in any compost - not a reason to spend billions of dollars of public funds.

In short, do not cry for Mars. It is not going away. We can send R2D2 to explore it and still keep a whole pile of dough for important and inspiring exploration missions right here on Earth, starting at the beach nearest you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Editor's Note: Amitai Etzioni is professor of international relations and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University. While space travel still gets a lot of attention, not enough attention has been accorded to a major new expedition to the deepest point in the ocean, some 7 miles deep - the recent journey by James Cameron, on behalf of National Geographic.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Fabien Cousteau is leading a team of scientists, educators, and filmmakers this month on the longest-ever expedition in a stationary habitat beneath the sea. The project, called Mission 31, aims to build awareness about the need to protect the ocean and honors a historic expedition 50 years ago by Cousteau's famous grandfather, explorer Jacques Cousteau.

Launched on June 1, Mission 31 is a 31-day, privately funded expedition at Florida International University's Medina Aquarius Reef Base.

The habitat lies 63 feet (19 meters) below the surface in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Windows look out on swimming fish and deep coral reefs. (See " Stunning Underwater Photos for World Ocean Day.")

The team is studying climate change, ocean acidification, plastics pollution, decline of biodiversity, and predator-prey relationships. Cousteau and his colleagues are also making a documentary film and have participated in more than 50 educational Skype sessions with schools, aquariums, and museums in the United States, Canada, Australia, Kenya, and the Czech Republic.

Guests who have dived to Aquarius for short visits with the Mission 31 team include National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence Sylvia Earle, Greg Stone of Conservation International, marine artist Wyland, actors Adrian Grenier and Ian Somerhalder, and retired NASA astronaut Clay Anderson.

"Jacques Cousteau was my hero, and I believe Fabien is following closely in his flippers," Wyland said in a statement. "Fabien is sharing the beauty of our undersea world with everyone and inviting artists, scientists, and all of us on this epic mission that will help us all have a better connection with our water world."

On June 11, Jacques Cousteau's birthday, Florida Governor Rick Scott called to wish the team well. The members also celebrated by wearing red caps, as Cousteau often did, and eating French pastries and "red cap" cookies.

Aquarius is the world's only underwater marine laboratory. It measures 43 by 20 by 16.5 feet (13 by 6 by 5 meters) and weighs approximately 81 tons. It has six bunk beds, hot water, a mini-kitchen, climate control, computers, and wireless Internet.

Fifty years ago, Jacques Cousteau led a 30-day expedition underwater aboard a habitat called Conshelf II in the Red Sea off Sudan. He and his team proved that "saturation diving," which means living and working at a pressure higher than on the surface, was possible for long periods. Mission 31 is 30 feet (9 meters) deeper than Conshelf II.

National Geographic spoke with Fabien Cousteau, as well as scientists Liz Magee and Grace Young, inside Aquarius via Skype. Magee is a research diver with Northeastern University; Young graduated in May from MIT with a degree in mechanical and ocean engineering, with a specialty in marine robotics.
What was the impact of Jacques Cousteau's Conshelf II expedition 50 years ago, and how did it inspire your current mission?
Cousteau: My grandfather was a pioneer in building underwater habitat. He and his team spent 30 days gathering scientific data, on both the ecosystems around their habitat and the physiological effects of working underwater. We are going one day longer than that expedition in a symbolic nod to honor them and to point the way toward future ocean exploration.

I grew up with a grandfather who was a visionary, a philosopher, and a wonderful storyteller. He was also very connected with young people. Being the oldest grandchild I got to live 30 years of my life with him. I've been on expeditions since a young age and have been immersed in that world.

Conshelf II has always been one of those legendary stories I kept in the back of my mind. When Sylvia Earle did her Mission Aquarius [in July 2012] to highlight the importance of ocean habitats, I realized I wanted to live the dream of becoming an aquanaut. And I realized what an amazing platform it is for education.
You are underwater in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and President Obama just announced plans for a huge new marine sanctuary around remote islands in the Pacific. How important are these protected areas?
Cousteau: Being a third-generation explorer, it brings me a lot of hope to see that the U.S. is leading by example. The Obama administration is protecting swaths of ocean that really need protecting. I look forward to seeing it come about and being enforced.

We desperately need protected areas around the world so we can rebuild the natural bank account that we all need.

Magee: If more people were exposed to the wonders of the sea, then everyone would be all for protecting it. That's why part of our mission is exposing people who don't normally think about the ocean to how vital it is to our livelihoods and our lives.

Young: I find it incredibly frightening that we have the technology to completely destroy the ocean in my lifetime, but marine protected areas are hope spots, as Sylvia Earle calls them.
Now that the mission is more than half over, what has it been like to live and work underwater for days at a time?
Cousteau: Today [June 19] is day 19 of the mission, which makes it officially the longest mission that has happened in the Aquarius habitat. We have another 13 days to go.

It's now been a few days since Liz and Grace joined us. They switched out with Andy [Shantz] and Adam [Zenone], two students from Florida International University. They've become surface dwellers again. We also have a team of 36 people at the surface, both scientists and support staff.
What have you learned about the physiological and psychological effects of living long-term underwater, at high pressure and without the sun?
Cousteau: We wear bands that monitor light and our activity, and we are doing a survey of how we sleep. We're working long days down here. At first we got up at 4:30 every morning and went to bed at 11. Now things have slowed down a little bit, and we're getting up at 6 but still going to bed around 11. We're studying the effects of being down here.
How did the decompression go for the first team-Adam and Andy-that left after the first part of the mission?
Cousteau: The decompression process takes about 18 and a half hours; it's lengthy. But living at saturation allows us to go diving as long as we want.

Magee: When we were getting ready to go down, we saw Adam and Andy come up. They said they were sad that it was over, but they were really excited to see the sun.
How does the saturation diving work?
Magee: After 24 hours of being down here, we are considered fully saturated, or fully nitrogen loaded. So we have more nitrogen dissolved in our blood [because of the pressure from the surrounding water].

That means we can stay out in the water diving for up to nine hours. It's such a unique opportunity, and one of the things I was most excited about, to be able to dive for so long.

Cousteau: When astronaut Clay Anderson came down here, he could only stay for 45 minutes. In that case it is just like a normal 60-foot (18-meter) dive. If he had stayed longer, he would have had to go through decompression.
Do you think we are any closer to realizing Jacques Cousteau's vision of underwater colonies?
Cousteau: Technologically speaking, we're absolutely capable of doing it at this point; it's a matter of funding and willpower. On the flip side of that coin, there is a lot of technology now that my grandfather had only dreamed of: for example, the ability to talk to you on the surface [through WiFi]. Underwater habitats are a fantastic tool for science and education, and they provide a unique perspective.

Young: I could see myself having an underwater vacation house, but I'd miss my friends and family too much to live underwater permanently.
You have pointed out that we have explored only about 5 percent of the ocean. Why is it important to keep exploring?
Cousteau: I think it's paramount to learn more about the ocean, not just for science, which is incredibly important, but also for ourselves. We need to learn more about the interconnectivity of the ocean. This is our life support system. Otherwise, we are just a little brown rock in space like all the others. There's no such thing as healthy people without a healthy ocean.

We're polluting what's left in ways that are starting to affect us. It's leading to increased rates of cancer and all sorts of other diseases. We're basically using the ocean as a garbage can.

Young: I'm concerned we might destroy ecosystems in the deep sea before we even know they existed. Now we have the technology to mine the seafloor, overfish, and destroy coral reefs by changing acidity.
Your team has been studying ocean acidification. How have you been doing that, and what have you learned?
Magee: There are beautiful giant sponges right outside the habitat. Some could be thousands of years old. Some call them redwoods of the reef. And we're setting up sensors inside them to measure such variables as oxygen and temperature, so we'll be able to understand what happens with rising acidity of the water and its impacts on the sponges. It will also help us better understand the activity of these sponges.
What else are you studying?
Magee: We are using sonar to study predators and prey. The sonar mounts to the top of your helmet so you can visualize it. And Grace brought a high-speed camera.

Young: The camera came out just five weeks ago, and we got one of the first models. We had a housing built for it, and we are using it for the first time underwater. Last night we looked at Christmas tree worms. We hope to better understand how the creature moves.

Magee: A grouper fish releases a pulse of sound to stun prey fish. We hope to capture that with the high-speed camera. It's so fast that you wouldn't hear it if you were diving right next to it. The only way we can hope to capture it is by spending hours in the water, and the only way we can do that is by saturation diving. The only way to do that is by a habitat, so Aquarius gives us the gift of time.
When retired astronaut Clay Anderson visited you at Aquarius earlier today, did he find the habitat similar to being in space?
Cousteau: NASA uses Aquarius as a training ground for space because the parameters are very similar to living in space. In 2003 Clay Anderson came down here to train. It's also thrilling to have an astronaut here to explain why it is so important for exploration in general.

Young: In my background in robotics, I think of the ocean and space as similar environments.
What do you do for fun underwater?
Magee: Yesterday was really fun for me. I made a dive over five hours, my longest ever. It's really fun just being in the water.

Young: We can watch movies, but we haven't much-we have too much fun looking out the window.

Cousteau: We have playing cards, but they haven't been opened. Most of the time we're just looking out the window. It's so fascinating. It's a unique experience.

Magee: The fish are just as intrigued with us as we are with them. Last night we had a grouper that was staring in at our window. She was checking us out.

Cousteau: It's also neat how many people are watching us online. We have a constant video stream. My mom saw me blow my nose, and she emailed to ask if I had a cold.
What have been the coolest things you've seen on the mission?
Cousteau: One evening [while diving] I was waiting for the cameraman, and I looked over at a post [outside the habitat]. All of a sudden, it started smoking. I thought it might be an electrical fire or something. But when I got closer, I realized there were about 30 Christmas tree worms on the post, and they had started spawning all at once, so it looked like smoke. I also saw a giant tarpon swimming around close enough to touch. A few days ago we saw a grouper strike a barracuda. I've never heard of that behavior before.

Young: What amazes me is I'll look at a patch that looks like empty sand, but the more you look the more you discover. I saw a piece of sea grass and then saw it walking. I thought I was hallucinating, and then I saw it was a tiny crab.

Cousteau: For Mission 31 we have the goal of reaching 331 million people around the world, and hopefully we'll double that. We'll have a feature documentary, and we have many blog posts and information on our website. We've done many sessions with classrooms around the world.

We hope to continue the synergy that we're starting to see around ocean protection. It's critical so our children will be able to enjoy the ocean. When I first had the idea for the mission, I didn't know if we would pull it off, but my grandfather used to say only the crazy ideas succeed.

Young: It's been a splash.
This interview has been edited and condensed. Follow Brian Clark Howard on Twitter and Google+.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fabien Cousteau Leads "Aquanauts" in Record-Breaking Undersea Expedition

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Fabien Cousteau is leading a team of scientists, educators, and filmmakers this month on the longest-ever expedition in a stationary habitat beneath the sea. The project, called Mission 31, aims to build awareness about the need to protect the ocean and honors a historic expedition 50 years ago by Cousteau's famous grandfather, explorer Jacques Cousteau.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Teaching Tools | Resources for Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore Scholastic Teaching Tools for teaching resources, printables, book lists, and more. Enhance your classroom experience with expert advice!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Was the Apollo Program? (Grades 5-8) - NASA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Apollo was the NASA program that resulted in American astronauts’ making a total of 11 spaceflights and walking on the moon.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With Magazines+, you get fresh, high-interest content delivered all year long-in print, online or both. Every single story, video and activity is designed to hook your students and keep them engaged. And because Magazines+ complements your curriculum, it's easy to implement during any part of the school day!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Classroom & News Magazines | Subscribe Now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Magazines+, you get fresh, high-interest content delivered all year long-in print, online or both. Every single story, video and activity is designed to hook your students and keep them engaged. And because Magazines+ complements your curriculum, it's easy to implement during any part of the school day!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Teaching Tools | Resources for Teachers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Explore Scholastic Teaching Tools for teaching resources, printables, book lists, and more. Enhance your classroom experience with expert advice!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Living under sea: Japanese visionaries unveil underwater city plan

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Will people ever live in underwater cities? Japanese construction firm says it is possible by 2030. The visionaries revealed a $25 billion deep-sea eco-city plan called Ocean Spiral for 5,000 people that will produce energy from sea resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
With Magazines+, you get fresh, high-interest content delivered all year long-in print, online or both. Every single story, video and activity is designed to hook your students and keep them engaged. And because Magazines+ complements your curriculum, it's easy to implement during any part of the school day!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Classroom & News Magazines | Subscribe Now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
With Magazines+, you get fresh, high-interest content delivered all year long-in print, online or both. Every single story, video and activity is designed to hook your students and keep them engaged. And because Magazines+ complements your curriculum, it's easy to implement during any part of the school day!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | MAVEN moves into orbit around Mars, will investigate atmospheric mystery

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The NASA spacecraft will measure Mars' atmosphere. Scientists will try to figure out how thick the Martian atmosphere used to be, and whether it was enough to support life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Humanity has been flying in space for 50 years now, but we are still confined to a single planet - Earth.

If it took only eight years to go from no humans in space to the first man on the moon, why haven't humans colonized Mars and other worlds yet? Or at the least the moon?

"NASA's plan as of 1969 was to have a human Mars mission by 1981, a permanent moon base in the '80s and a permanent Mars base in 1988," said Robert Zubrin, president and founder of the Mars Society.

(Image credit: ESA)

Interplanetary human voyages pose definite scientific and technological challenges. One would have to deal with the rigors of travel - issues of food, water and oxygen, the deleterious effects of microgravity, potential hazards such as fire and radiation and the fact that any such astronauts would be millions of miles away from help and confined together for years at a time. Landing, working, living and returning from another planet would offer a host of challenges as well. [Vote! The Best Spaceships of All Time]
Space exploration versus politics

(Image credit: ESA)

Still, the main reason that people have not yet voyaged past the orbit of the moon is mostly a political one.

The era of human spaceflight began on April 12, 1961, when the Soviet Union shocked the world by launching cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, into orbit. At the time, the so-called Space Race was under way, with the United States and Soviet Union both working to land a human on the moon first. That race ended with NASA's historic Apollo 11 moon shot, which landed astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the lunar surface on July 20, 1969.

"The Cold War is over," said Bill Nye, executive director of the Planetary Society.

Back in the early days of human spaceflight, the United States and Soviet Union were locked in the Cold War, a life-or-death struggle that spurred the space race for control of the ultimate high ground.

Since then, however, "we've had a major failure of political leadership in this country when it came to human spaceflight," Zubrin said. "It'd be like Columbus coming back from America and Ferdinand and Isabella saying, 'so what?'"

(Image credit: ESA)

A question of will
Although one "can talk forever about the technical problems, those are red herrings," Zubrin said. "You can talk about the risk of being exposed to radiation in space for years, but cosmonauts have already had larger cosmic ray doses at the International Space Station and Mir. This isn't a question of technical challenges - it's a question of will." [ The Best (and Worst) Mars Landings]

"You can say it's risky, but imagine all the risks human spaceflight faced in the beginning," Zubrin said. "When Kennedy gave his speech in May of 1961 about putting a man on the moon, we had 15 minutes of human spaceflight experience, and yet we went."

"My uncle landed on Normandy beach," Zubrin said. "They didn't hold up the Normandy landing until they knew it was safe. If you're going to wait to go to Mars until it's going to be safe, you're never going to Mars."

The goal now "is toget people to realize the value of human spaceflight," Nye said. "When we explore with robots, we make discoveries, but not nearly as fast as with people, and not in the same engaging way."

"This is really a challenge of who we are, what kind of people we are," Zubrin said. "Are we willing to accept challenges and embrace risk? Or are we ultimately resigning from our role as a nation of pioneers?"
Follow SPACE.com contributor Charles Q. Choi on Twitter @cqchoi. Visit SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For 50 years, humans have been flying in space, yet there are no astronauts living on Mars. If it took 8 years to reach the moon in the Space Race, why hasn't Earth colonized Mars?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Forget Mars, we should go back to the MOON says Chris Hadfield

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Canadian Chris Hadfield tells MailOnline we should go back to the moon The former astronaut says current plans to go to Mars are too ambitious Instead we should be looking to live on the moon for 'generations' He also responds to comments from Nasa chief Charles Bolden last week who

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why NASA Scientists Are Heading Underwater

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why NASA Scientists Are Heading Underwater has 300 reviews and 0 ratings. Reviewer ethan300 wrote: ”#TEAMOCEAN”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Newsela | Space dream is a little closer for Maryland woman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scholastic Classroom & News Magazines | Subscribe Now!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Scholastic Classroom Magazines & Scholastic News Magazines cover the latest topics to enhance instruction in math, science, reading, social studies, and more! Subscribe Today!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Stephen Ornes lives in Nashville, Tenn., and his family has two rabbits, six chickens and a cat. He has written for Science News Explores since 2008 on topics including lightning, feral pigs, big bubbles and space junk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every messy kid gets told to clean up his or her room. City governments send out trucks and crews to clean up roads and parks. Now, scientists say if we want

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Each white dot represents an individual piece of tracked orbital debris. This image shows the Low Earth Orbit, which is the region from the Earth's surface to 1,240 miles and contains the most space junk.

NASA Johnson Space Center

On a clear night, you can look in the sky and see the moon and stars. You might even see the blinking light of a working satellite as it flies past, on its way around the Earth.

And, even though you cannot see it, you are also looking at the largest junkyard in the solar system.

Higher than the highest clouds but much closer than the moon, the bulk of the junkyard stretches from the Earth's surface to 20,000 miles overhead. There are tens of millions of pieces of rubbish there. Some of the pieces are rocks and dust from passing comets, but most of them are manmade and called "orbital debris" (pronounced duh-BREE).

There are some unusual things up there, like a camera that floated away from astronaut Sunita "Suni" Williams in December 2006. Other astronauts have lost tools like wrenches and screwdrivers. In 1965 astronaut Ed White even lost a spare glove. Most of the junk, however, comes from large satellites and rockets that fell apart after they stopped working.

Together, all the space junk would weigh about 11 million pounds on Earth, or more than 3,000 cars. The largest piece is a part of a rocket about the size of a minivan. The smallest piece would fit on your pinkie fingernail with room to spare.

"It's like a classic environmental problem, like water pollution or air pollution," says Nicholas Johnson. Johnson is the Chief Scientist for Orbital Debris at the NASA Johnson Space Center in Houston. His job is to keep track of the orbiting garbage.

The junkyard is a serious problem for the future of spaceflight.

"You've got multimillion satellites in orbit all the time, and manned space flights," says Joe Gambrell, who helps keep track of both working and broken-down satellites. His main tool is the U.S. Space Surveillance Network, which is part of the U.S. military. Gambrell works at the Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, Colo. "If you don't track debris, you risk some kind of collision," he adds.

In 2007, the space junkyard grew by more than 100,000 pieces. That's more than any other year since people started launching satellites into space. The problem of space junk is not going away, and scientists are watching closely.

Danger in Orbit

A "satellite" is any object that orbits another object, held close by gravity. The moon is a satellite of the Earth, and the Earth is a satellite of the sun. These are natural satellites. Manmade satellites, which are built on Earth and launched into space, are used for communications, scientific studies and military applications.

In the last 50 years, human beings have launched thousands of artificial satellites into space. When a satellite stops working, it usually falls back toward the Earth and burns up in the atmosphere. Satellites at high altitudes, however, sometimes remain in Earth's orbit.

Later, they may fall apart or explode into thousands of smaller pieces. The higher the satellite, the longer it stays in orbit, and the more likely it is to break apart. The pieces may stay in orbit for years, decades or even centuries.

At the NASA Ames Research Center, scientists simulate what would happen were a tiny piece of space junk to hit a spacecraft.

NASA

Space junk races around the Earth at breakneck speeds. Most pieces fly through space at more than 20 times the speed that sound travels on Earth. Going that fast, even the smallest pieces mean big trouble for spacecraft. For example, a tiny marble in orbit around the Earth can have as much energy as a bowling ball going 500 miles per hour, or a car going 30 miles per hour.

A tiny fleck of paint struck and cracked one window of the space shuttle Challenger while it was in space in 1983. The shuttle returned to Earth safely from that mission.

NASA Johnson Space Center

In 1983, a small gouge appeared in one window of the space shuttle Challenger while it was in space. When the shuttle returned to Earth and scientists analyzed the window, they found that the crack was caused by a tiny, orbiting fleck of paint. If the shuttle had been struck by a larger piece of junk, the astronauts may have been in danger.

Many other satellites and space shuttles have also shown damage from tiny pieces of trash. When the space shuttle Endeavour returned to Earth last August, its radiator panels had small holes from space garbage. Last year, two satellites had to be redirected to avoid collisions with big pieces of junk.

The U.S. Space Surveillance Network and NASA work together to keep track of the largest pieces. When the shuttle is in orbit, for example, their attention is on nearby junk that may get in the way. If there is even a small chance of a collision, then the shuttle changes direction.

Watching the garbage

About 17,000 pieces of garbage are larger than 4 inches, which is slightly smaller than a softball. The Space Surveillance Network keeps a list of all these pieces, using dozens of telescopes and antennas on Earth and in space to watch them. Because all the pieces are in motion all the time, keeping track is difficult (but not impossible).

Monitoring the space junk is a problem of energy and motion. To keep track of the junk, the scientists have to know two things: where the garbage is now, and where it is going to be in the future.

This antenna, located in the Mojave Desert, California, can use radio to detect tiny pieces of junk, if they're not too high.

NASA Johnson Space Center

To find out where a piece is now, scientists use telescopes and high-powered antennas to watch it fly through space. Every day, scientists must make sure each piece is where they expect to find it. A "lost piece" could mean serious danger for a working satellite or space shuttle.

To find out where the piece is going, scientists measure its speed and direction as it crosses the sky. Some of the pieces move in an almost perfect circle around the Earth. Other pieces move in elliptical orbits, which means they are sometimes closer to Earth and sometimes farther as they fly. The measurement of direction is complicated because junk can move north or south, east or west, and up or down.

By knowing the location, speed and direction of each big piece of junk, the scientists can predict where all the pieces will go. (Similarly, in baseball, an outfielder has to predict where a pop fly will land, if she wants to catch it. In soccer, a goalie has to predict where a ball will go, so he can block it.)

"We're always looking about four days into the future, tracking objects which might come close," says Johnson.

There are tens of millions of pieces smaller than softballs. Because there are so many small pieces, "We can't [keep track] of them all," Johnson says. Instead of watching each piece individually, scientists use telescopes and antennas to watch one patch of sky and count the number of pieces that pass overhead. With that small measurement, they can use a computer program to get a good idea of what the whole sky looks like.

Keeping track of all the junk is necessary to ensure that astronauts and working satellites can be safe. Like other environmental problems, space junk will get worse without careful monitoring and attention. In the future, pieces of junk will probably hit each other, making even more trash.

The more garbage that remains in orbit, the greater the risk to space flights. What can be done about the problem of space junk? The large pieces of junk cannot be brought back to Earth, Johnson says, because the technology is too expensive. Instead, he says, we should try to stop adding new garbage. For example, engineers are changing the way they build spacecraft.

"How you build your satellite can minimize debris," Gambrell says.

A solution will require international cooperation. Last year, the United Nations General Assembly approved guidelines for how to reduce the risk of space junk. Johnson says that spacefaring countries came together because "the environment was getting worse every year."

If countries work together to control the amount of trash we send into space, Johnson says, we can keep the problem under control. In the future, perhaps we can even clean up the mess.

"In time, either technology or economics will allow us to go out and [improve] the environment," he says.

Stephen Ornes lives in Nashville, Tenn., and his family has two rabbits, six chickens and a cat. He has written for Science News Explores since 2008 on topics including lightning, feral pigs, big bubbles and space junk.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Each white dot represents an individual piece of tracked orbital debris. This image shows the Low Earth Orbit, which is the region from the Earth's surface to 1,240 miles and contains the most space junk. NASA Johnson Space Center On a clear night, you can look in the sky and see the moon and stars.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Trash . . . . . In Space? has 563 reviews and 0 ratings. Reviewer shashplay wrote: "Thank you this is so helpful for my 5 grade research 😇"