New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Choosing Targets

In space and on Earth, progress depends on making smart choices

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

She was a stray mongrel picked up off the streets of Moscow, and her handlers called her by several names before someone in the budding Soviet space program tagged her as Laika. On Halloween of 1957 she was bundled inside Sputnik 2. Three days later—just one month after Sputnik 1 was launched and started the space race—she became the first living creature in history to leave Earth. That distinction was tragically brief because Laika died only a few hours later, apparently from a combination of stress and overheating, but she lasted long enough to suggest that humans, too, might survive weightlessness and find a future in space. In our current celebrations of the Sputnik golden anniversaries, let us also salute the memory of a very good dog.

In the half a century since then, space programs have seen plenty of other epic triumphs and tragedies. For NASA, the past couple of decades have had an “it was the best of times, it was the worst of times” flavor, with fantastic high points such as the Cassini mission to Saturn and the treks of the Mars rovers but also nadirs such as the shocking losses of the Challenger and Columbia space shuttles. The manned space program in particular has often seemed listless, executing missions in support of an international space station whose raison d'être has grown shabbier every year.

That has begun to change. President George W. Bush set long-term goals in 2004 for returning to the moon and going to Mars; one may question the wisdom of those targets and their financial impact on science (Scientific American certainly has), but it is nonetheless good to see momentum carrying NASA toward something.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The Constellation program's transportation system, including the new Orion vehicle, is planned to make those coming forays in space possible. A team of NASA and Lockheed Martin engineers involved in developing those craft offers a peek at them in “To the Moon and Beyond,” which makes up one half of this month's special report on the future of space exploration, beginning on page 62.

In the other half, “Five Essential Things to Do in Space,” on page 69, staff editor George Musser weighs what NASA and its counterparts in other nations ought to be doing. Out of the limitless possibilities for study in our solar system, what priorities should space scientists set? Readers may agree or disagree with his choices (and we encourage you to send your preferred list to editors@sciam.com), but consensus is not the point. Attention to setting the right goals is the best way to keep the space program healthy for another 50 years.

There is also no shortage of crucial choices to make here on Earth about how best to protect imperiled nature. Any desirable future for this planet must be conducive to humans along with the rest of the biosphere. But how to achieve that?

Some past Scientific American articles have championed focusing protection efforts on biodiversity “hot spots.” In “Conservation for the People,” on page 50, however, conservationists Peter Kareiva and Michelle Marvier argue that more good—for both nature and people—will come from saving ecosystems that render valuable services to human communities. Perhaps the only way to convince society to invest more in conservation is by showing how much it already has at stake.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe