Introduction
There is currently considerable debate about whether or not the U.S. space program should continue, particularly bearing in mind its huge costs in these times of austerity, when budgets everywhere are subject to severe constraints, from government level down to individual households. Also, because manned space exploration is not without risk (witness the Challenger and Columbia disasters in 1986 and 2003 respectively that cost the lives of all seven crew members in each case), many question whether those risks are justified; what does humanity gain from space travel that can cause the risks to be considered worthwhile? This research paper looks at the reasons why / why not the space program should be continued. On balance, the reasons for continuing are more powerful and more important for science and humanity, outweighing the arguments against.
The Research
The background is that the drastically reduced budget assigned to NASA by the Obama administration in February 2010 precluded manned space flight development for the foreseeable future (Homans, Nov. 2010). Instead, NASA was to administer a five-year contract worth $6 billion for private companies to provide ferry services of crew and supplies to and from the International Space Station (ISS). As reported in the article, many saw the move as bringing to an untimely end America’s lead in the global space program industry, even though the longer term objective is to resume research and development when commercial flights take over servicing the ISS, so relieving NASA of that particular burden.
Tischler (2009) published a paper entitled “Comments on a Continuing Space Program” in which he advised adopting a reasoned approach to the issue, rather than looking at the short-term situation colored by today’s economic woes. His opinions merit serious consideration; his background suggests he does know the subject as well as anyone. Adelbert Tischler – according to “Biographies of Aerospace Officials and Policymakers, T-Z” (updated Feb 2013):
. . . held numerous posts at NASA during the course of his career. . . worked as a chemical engineer for NACA before being named NASA’s Chief of Liquid Rocket Engines . . . helped to develop the engines used during the Apollo program . . . Director of the Chemical Propulsion Division, within the Office of Advanced Research and Technology . . . Director of the Shuttle Technology Office.
Tischler stated the fairly obvious in remarking that NASA’s primary problem is the gulf between the funds they need to continue their various programs and the funds allocated to them in current budgets. He pointed out that having abandoned the Apollo hardware and the Saturn launch rockets due to the cost of maintaining their development, and having obtained support for the International Space Station (ISS), a project now also at risk due to funding constraints, NASA has to find alternative launch systems, but has to design them to be multi-use in the light of severely restricted projected federal budgets. Tischler warned that trying to accommodate the requirements of differing interest groups by designing “compromise solutions” is ultimately the road to overspends and restrictions on project goals. He also reminded readers that U.S. (NASA) decisions on future space exploration must take into account the plans of other nations, so that joint projects will bring benefits to all. He considered it very important to plan future development programs on long-term objectives, rather than go forward on the basis of imposed decisions that could be regretted down the road when found to be unsuitable. Tischler clearly favors continuation of the space program but with proper, considered planning with long term objectives, and based on carefully calculated costings. Those should take fully into account that many missions can be fulfilled on an unmanned basis – and at far lower costs than manned missions, and should be selected according to their likely benefits to all. However, as Tischler pointed out, the benefits of the space program extend far beyond those individuals and companies directly involved. In his opinion the spin-off businesses and jobs created as a consequence of the space program far outweigh the monies spent to date on the space program itself. He also reminded us that much of the technology we take for granted today came out of research for the space program, which also provided the U.S. with a distinct prestige internationally.
Tischler’s advice for the planners of a continuing space program is to divide up the overall objectives into elements that can each be achieved as and when all the resources and capabilities required are available. As he succinctly put it: “The way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time.” In the normal way of progress, he maintained that in due course further development of the space program will be based on the new discoveries and data already made by then, so facilitating the next phase of progress. Tischler considered that such an approach could reduce program costs dramatically. In summary, he urged: “Let us light a candle, draw a map, and plot a path to the discovery of greater knowledge of the universe we live in and to applications of our concomitantly-developing knowledge and technologies that enrich our welfare.”
It has to be said that not everyone supports the idea of a continuing space program in any form. Safety is an obvious issue; as mentioned in the Introduction to this paper, two shuttle disasters cost the lives of all 14 astronauts involved. The mammoth costs associated with the space program represent another major negative factor. Not only has the entire space program today cost vast sums of taxpayers’ money, but as reported by Sample (July 2011), just the estimated cost of each shuttle launch was $1.5 billion. For a total of 135 shuttle flights that’s an awful lot of dollars that opponents of the space program believe could have been better spent elsewhere.
On the other hand, whilst the two shuttle disasters were absolute tragedies that were seen by millions on live TV, the overall risk of crew fatality throughout the entire life of the shuttle program was very low. If each shuttle carried seven crew members and there were 135 missions, 14 lives lost out of 945 astronauts represents just below 1.5 percent. Whilst even one life lost is one too many, most serving flyers or astronauts would doubtless regard that level of risk as acceptable. Also regarding the huge costs of a space program, remember – as Tischler said – that not only did it create thousands of jobs but even whole new industries, and is either directly or indirectly responsible for much of the technology we tend to take for granted today. Not only that, but to put things in perspective, take a look at the costs compared with other government expenditures. According to Colucci, reporting in US News (Dec 2012), the $18.7 billion NASA budget equated to less than 0.5 percent of the overall federal budget and was less than the government support that bailed out the automobile industry. Colucci asserted that Obama should ensure that NASA has the needed funding and should again take the lead in space exploration on behalf of the US government. Colucci saw it as inevitable that the country dominating space will be the nation “with a secure future.”
Another, not unexpected, supporter of a continuation of the space program is Buzz Aldrin, the now 83-years old ex-Apollo astronaut and writer who is best known for his moonwalk on the Apollo 11 mission. In his book “MISSION TO MARS: My Vision for Space Exploration” published this year (2013), Aldrin not only firmly supports the continuation of the space program, but sees the objective as getting astronauts on Mars in maybe 20 years or so, and emphasizes that the way to further progress is not to re-visit the moon, but to press ahead with “other” destinations in order to push “our boundaries of knowledge and exploration of our solar system.”
Other compelling reasons for continuing / resuming the space program were offered by Adamu (Oct 2012) in an article for CNN entitled “Exploring space: Why’s it so important?” The reasons given included the following benefits to humanity (summarized) that have resulted from the space program so far. It is almost certain that a continuing space program would throw up further discoveries and developments of equal or greater benefit to humanity:
- Health: Digital Image Processing, developed by NASA to enhance images of the moon surface, was found to be an ideal tool in the medical field, and is today used MRI and CT scanning techniques.
- Medicine: Dan Carter of NASA discovered that the otherwise difficult task of creating protein crystal on a large scale could be accomplished in space. That discovery eventually led to developing a new drug for cancer treatment and applications for products used in skin care.
- Information Technology: Huge amounts of information collected from satellites are downloaded every day and stored, as part of NASA’s “Earth Observing System Data and Information System.” The software and other technology developed to archive those massive data volumes are now also used by hospitals and other large businesses.
- Communications: Many of the satellites orbiting the Earth were placed in position in the 1960s through joint efforts by NASA and partner companies like AT&T and RCA. Those satellites now provide us with communication and navigation capabilities, and are also used by TV networks, cell-phone service providers, radio stations and others. Even the GPS system that we all take for granted came out of space technology, now operating through a dedicated system of satellites placed in orbit between 1978 and 1995.
- The Environment: The polluting effect of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) was dealt with by the NASA discovery of a solvent that allowed the PCBs to be removed from paint coatings with damaging the paint. Since then the system has been refined to cope with other forms of pollution and contamination such as pesticides.
- Transportation: Radial tires used on our automobiles originate from the fibrous material used for parachutes on the Mars Viking landers, and developed by Goodyear. Tires made using this material not only have an expected life of 10,000 miles more than non-radial tires, but compared with steel its durability is five times better.
- Public Safety: The technology used for the high pressure pumps used in the mighty rocket launchers has been adapted for use in firefighting. It not only suppresses fires in a matter of seconds but reduces the amounts of water used by virtue of the pressure producing finer water droplets.
- Memory Foam: Anyone who has enjoyed the improved comfort of a memory foam mattress has NASA to thank. The polyurethane-based material was developed by NASA to cushion spacecraft landings.
- Water Filtration: Advanced systems originally developed for astronauts’ use are now used in other applications.
In addition to reporting all of the above beneficial spin-offs from the space program, Adamu addressed the matter of NASA’s budget, which she reported was $18.7 billion in 2012, equivalent to less than one percent of the total U.S. budget. Of that figure, just $3.8 billion was earmarked specifically for the exploration of space. To put that somewhat in perspective Adamu reported that the budget for the Department of Defense was $670 billion. She also reminded readers that in 2010 President Obama stated that “space exploration has been key to America’s position as a world leader.”
Yet another article coming out in support of the space program was published by Levinger (Apr 2010) in The Tech, the online newspaper for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Under the intriguing title “Opinion: Should we cut NASA funding?” it in fact was another piece that put the NASA budget into a more realistic perspective, comparing it with other government expenditures. Examples he provided included missile defense ($8 billion), spy satellites ($12 billion), Iraq reconstruction ($9 billion). Admitting that there were problems with NASA’s apparent lack of purpose in recent years, but sympathizing with their invidious position of trying to move forward with only the outdated shuttle as a launch vehicle, Levinger urged that NASA push forward with a space program in the interests of man’s future. He concluded with the following statement indicating his continuing support for the space program: “I, for one, am glad that people still stare up at the stars, even if things still need work here on Earth. How else will we get to the future that we all deserve?”
Conclusion
Although there are genuine reasons why people oppose the continuation / resumption of an effective space program by NASA, not least the present parlous state of the U.S. economy and the undoubted risks associated with space travel in general and breaking new ground in that field in particular, the reasons for continuing / resuming space exploration outweigh those arguments by a significant margin.
The benefits to mankind that have come from the years of the space programs thus far, as mentioned within this paper, and the advances in science and technology that have come along with those benefits, are important and will be added to in the future if the space program is allowed to continue, and to make further advances and discoveries. It is also important that America maintains its key position in space exploration by continuing with a program that creates thousands of jobs, both directly and indirectly. Rather than focus on economies that can be made in the short term, we should be looking towards longer term objectives that will be stifled if the space program stagnates, and expertise is lost when key personnel have found employment in other fields.
Works Cited:
Adamu, Z. (Oct 2012). “Exploring space: Why’s it so important?” CNN. Web. 24 April 2013.
Aldrin, B., and David, L. (2013). “Mission to Mars: My Vision for Space Exploration.” National Geographic Books. ISBN 978-1-4262-1017-4. Print.
“Biographies of Aerospace Officials and Policymakers, T-Z.” (updated Feb 2013). National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA History Division. Web. 24 April 2013.
Colucci, L. (Dec 2012). “America Must Retake Lead in Space Exploration.” US News. Web. 24 April 2013.
Homans, C. (Nov. 2010). “Can the free market save the space program?” University of Vermont. Web. 24 April 2010.
Levinger, J. (Apr 2010). “Opinion: Should we cut NASA funding?” The Tech (the online newspaper for MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology). Web. 25 April 2013.
Sample, I. (Jul 2011). “What does the final shuttle flight mean for space exploration?” The Guardian. Web. 24 April 2013.
Tischler, A., O. (October 2009). “Comments on a Continuing Space Program.” aerospaceamerica. Web. 24 April 2013.
