The 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon
landing has been an occasion for many Americans to not only celebrate the
incredible accomplishment, but to critically analyze the future of our
country’s space exploration programs.
The verdict? We’ve let
ourselves down.
Ever since Neil Armstrong uttered that phrase immortalizing him in history books, NASA budgets have
been slashed and marginalized. The author Tom
Wolfe recently wrote that the American space program “died in infancy”
though he and many like-minded people fully expected the moon landing to be the
first of many ambitious NASA missions.
The explanation for the abatement is simple — with one small
step for a man we had beaten the Soviets to the moon. Viewing space exploration
merely as an extension of the Cold War, Washington turned its attention towards
the
weaponization of space.
It wasn’t just a romantic desire to probe the heavens that
we quashed by taking our collective eye off the ball. Investing in space
exploration has given the United States government quite the lucrative return,
refuting the notion that space exploration is a waste of money. By some
accounts, every
dollar sunk into NASA yielded 8 dollars in GDP growth for the U.S. economy.
If you enjoy the use of your integrated circuit computer or your satellite
communications, then you owe some gratitude to the scientists at NASA who
developed these technologies.
Those technologies were just the start, too. Think about the
implications for our well-being if, for example, NASA developed a solar powered
rocket in the eighties: we’d be walking, nay, driving and flying on sunshine.
Somehow, a bloated missile defense budget was more important.
Not all Americans are convinced of the benefit that space
exploration brings, however. Despite the positive spin put
on the situation by SpaceRef.com, 48% of people in 2008 opposed increasing
NASA’s funding, despite the fact that it constitutes less than 1% of the
Federal Government’s total budget. 52% of Americans wanting to increase space
exploration funding hardly constitutes a consensus. To illustrate the lack of interest, NASA’s 2008 budget of $17.3
billion is one-fifth the amount that Americans spend
annually on beer. Even if you factor in the amount spent on private space
exploration, we as a nation have shown that we’re far more interested in light
beer than light speed.
Beyond opposition to expanding NASA’s budget, some even feel
that NASA
should cede space exploration to the private sector by ceasing to exist
completely. Though it would be foolish to deny private companies a role in
voyages above the exosphere, it would be equally foolish to cease
federally-funded space exploration. Surely such a capital-intensive venture is
a natural monopoly,
never mind the fact that the risk involved is humongous. Would a private space
exploration industry even be profitable? Just how would private space
exploration make money, anyway? Asteroid mining? Would NASA’s work effectively
be contracted out to private companies (look
what that strategy achieved at the Pentagon)? And what’s wrong with NASA? It has made blunders,
but, when properly funded, was capable of landing men on the moon within 11
years of its creation.
It’s hard to imagine a private space company, given current
technological constraints, as having any more success than NASA. Besides, the
arguments for profit as incentive pale in comparison to the allure of the glory
of exploring planets and galaxies.
If private investors are interested in making money on space
travel, perhaps they should focus primarily on space tourism. The industry
itself is controversial
and doubted
by some as a long-term profitable venture, but the market for space tourism
exists and people are willing to pay good money to live out their childhood
fantasies - something the
British government learned this the hard way. Due to neglecting the
necessary legal framework, the country missed out on hosting spaceports that
would’ve been able to service Virgin Galactic, a company that claims to have
already sold 200 tickets at $200,000, a piece, despite the fact that it has yet
to make a single trip.
Technological and economic benefits aren’t the only reason
that we should be exploring the cosmos, either. In the event of a doomsday
scenario, it would be good to know that a Plan B exists – something that has
been advocated by respected scientists such as Steven Hawking and Wernher von Braun. As
Russian rocket scientist Konstantin Eduardovich Tsiolkovsky once said: “The
earth is the cradle of the mind, but one cannot eternally live in a cradle.”
That quote especially would especially be pertinent should we discover that an
Armageddon sized asteroid was barreling towards this massive cradle.
In addition to providing economic windfall and insurance in
the event of an apocalyptic scenario, space exploration also gives the people
of the world the opportunity to put aside their petty differences for a greater
goal. Though space exploration may be closely linked in many American minds
with the cold war, its nature is one of internationalism – would extra
terrestrials identify us Americans or Earthlings? Global cooperation in space
already exists to some degree in the form of the International Space Station,
furthering it might act as a deterrent to future wars. Two countries would be
less likely to battle it out on Earth if they were sending men and women to
Mars together, for example.
Space exploration should not be considered a panacea, though
its incredible benefits should not be denied. NASA should adequately be funded
in order to nurture our inquisitive nature – the sort that helped us first
invent the wheel and then turn it into the automobile. Who knows what potential
we can tap into? The sky isn’t the limit, it’s merely the beginning.
Also Interesting:
[+] NASA CAMPAIGN
[+] NASA "super plastic" saves lives of cardiac patients
[+] NASA scientist’s outspoken ways earn him prestigious award
[+] Spotlight: NASA Phoenix Mars Lander Team
