The Race (or Lack Therof) to Space
“Here men from the planet Earth first set foot upon the moon.
July 1969, A.D.
We came in peace for all mankind.”
Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong left a plaque with this quotation on the moon prior to their departure from space. While mankind may have had peaceful intentions for first stepping on our moon, the debate over space exploration in this current age has been all but tranquil. How far is too far? This question refers to more than the physical distance man and technology are capable of reaching in space. Rather, it asks when does space exploration do more harm to man than good? Is space exploration worth the time, money, and resources that could potentially be used elsewhere? Any discussion of space seems to produce infinite questions, just like the universe itself.
First, let us look at the facts. Where is space exploration currently and where has it come from?
The first living to enter space was fungus in 1946. The first artificial satellite to orbit Earth was the U.S.S.R.’s Sputnik in 1957. The first person to walk on the moon was America’s Neil Armstrong in 1969.
These “firsts” led to the deployment of the Hubble Space Telescope in 1990, the establishment of the International Space Station in 1998, and 135 missions of the American Space Shuttle Program, ending in 2011. In this post-shuttle era, NASA sends satellites into space and supplies/experiments to the International Space Station.
The President of the United State is responsible for making our nation’s space policy. President Obama promised to fund NASA with $6 billion from 2010-2015. Twenty percent of NASA’s planetary-sciences budget was cut during a restructuring plan 2013. However, in 2014, the Obama Administration stated that the International Space Station’s existence would be extended for another four years, moving the shutdown to 2024.
The advancement of space exploration is nothing miniscule. However, can it be justified?
Many of the greatest advances in technology were not developed in order to win a prize or recognition. For example, aircraft engineer Burt Rutan and his partner Paul Allen spent more on the production of their private spacecraft than what they would be compensated for ($10 million) by winning the Ansari X-Prize. They, along with other innovators, produced such masterpieces out of sheer inner desire and curiosity.
Now, maybe this civic issue is not completely an “either-or” debate. It is possible to improve life on Earth by using space technology. Take climate change for example. Forests have the ability to absorb atmospheric carbon. The density of the forests is related to the amount of carbon absorbed. The only way to measure this density is with a laser instrument from a bird’s eye view…268 miles above the surface of Earth. According to Smithsonian.com‘s article regarding climate change, in 2018, the $94 million Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation on the International Space Station will be capable of sending 16 billion beams per year, using a total of three infrared lasers, at the canopies of forests. The reflection time data will then provide information when calculating forest biomass.
We can have our cake and eat it too! Earth scientists and space explorers find peace.
Well, not so fast.
As a 2011 article in The Economist notes, “Every planet has now been visited, and every planet with a surface bar Mercury has been landed on. Asteroids, moons, and comets have all been added to the stamp album.” The article goes on to suggest there exists decreasing public enthusiasm in space exploration on the American front. With the Space Shuttle Program scrapped, NASA finds difficulty in gaining public attention – except when its launch fails after ten seconds of flight as did happen in October 2014. (This was an unmanned mission intending to send the CRS-3 Cygnus to the International Space Station so, luckily, there were no injuries.)
The Economist again attacks space exploration, but this time on the private end as the idea of space tourism becomes more common. Yes, space tourism is something of a marvel even in today’s generation. However, costs continue to increase as people want to move away from the low-Earth orbit and towards the moon itself. Are little “vacations” or “adventures” such as those really sustainable?
Burt Rutan would argue yes.
Rutan shared his thoughts in his 2006 TED Talk: The Real Future of Space Exploration. He defended his proposal that entrepreneurs should lead the new age of space development. Rutan’s critics argue he is wasting away businessmen’s money and for what purpose? He provided a simple answer in his TED Talk: for fun. He claimed that this new age of space exploration will inspire children who have found discoveries in this new frontier almost routine. These future scientists need to be shown something that makes them want to produce the next great material used in space or develop better communication between Earth and space experiments. Rutan calculated that the cost the general public pays for personal space travel exceeds the production costs of these space crafts. Now, his long term proposal is that man should colonize space in order to prevent human extinction.
Robin Hanbury-Tenison, an acclaimed author, explorer, and campaigner, strongly disagrees that mankind should look to space as a safety net for our population. According to an editorial piece he wrote in the Engineering and Technology Magazine, the current age of climate change, warfare, and drought are all just premonitions of the impending collapse of humanity. Hanbury-Tenison asserts that scientists should be doing research in methods of managing the planet’s resources if civilizations really do collapse after 500 years of existence. “The only way to reduce population is prosperity, because we prosperous countries do not breed so fast. The way to do that is to give people enough to eat. The way to do that is to make it rain.” Funds used in space could find a new purpose in funding projects like these. Technology already exists that acts as on/off switch of rain.
Just because we can manipulate weather patterns, should we?
Just because we can populate space, should we?
Humans like to leave their mark. They fear being forgotten because the world will eventually and successfully move on without them. However, this civic issue of space exploration is far from complete. The outcome will leave a defining mark on humanity. Will the result positively or negatively affect us? Only time will tell.
