“Our only chance of long-term survival is not to remain inward-looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space."- Stephen Hawking. It is no lie that as the human race continues to rapidly expand we’re putting more and more stress on Earth. Irreversible damage is being done to our planet every day, and there is no sign of us stopping anytime soon. As the planet continues to be abused we should be looking up to the stars as our next frontier. The fact is that as our population continues to grow exponentially, so does the consumption of Earth's natural resources. Globally we should be putting more interest and effort into the sciences and space because humanity has a common stake in space exploration. It will be needed to ensure the survival of the human race, and without it we are sure to die on this planet.
The biggest issue we’re facing now is the lack of public interest in space programs, and this needs to change. People now see no need for us to keep getting involved in space. They think why work to go to space when we should be fixing the problems with Earth. They don’t see that human settlement of space is going to need a large development effort to create the equipment that will sustain life, and get us to beyond our planet. For those discoveries and breakthroughs to be made, large groups of researchers and scientist will be needed, but without the public interest in exploration few people will actually go towards that career path. Those who see no value in it should take a look at our past around the Cold War era.
With the initiation of the space race in 1957 by the Soviets launch of Sputnik I the space race was seen as a, “New arena for superpower sparring, and it's exploration simply viewed as Cold War strategic positioning” (Shreve 68). Although it started off with this nefarious view it soon became a beacon for peace at a time of tension. President Kennedy noted the change in thinking during an annual State of the Union Message as he called for cooperation between the Soviet union and the U.S. In it he stated, “‘Both nations would help themselves as well as other nations by ten moving these endeavors from the bitter and wasteful competition of the Cold War. The United States would be willing to join with the Soviet Union ... in a greater effort to make the fruits of this new knowledge available to all…’” (Shreve 71). Soon the public’s interest in the space race between the U.S. and the Soviets led to an urgency in creating new technologies that would help get them to space, and that led to innovations in almost all fields.
We can attribute things like solar panels, video enhancing systems, smoke detectors, water purification, scratch resistant lenses, satellite television, velcro, and even the CAT scan machine to NASA (Lockney 1). They’re called NASA Spinoffs, tech created by NASA to help during space missions that was later repurposed to serve a commercial use. NASA isn’t only about getting to space, but building technology that will benefit mankind in general. To help get more use out of their technology they’ve created the NASA Technology Transfer Program whose mission is through licensing agreements and partnerships to find secondary uses of their technology to benefit the economy, create jobs, and improve life. Without the incentive of getting to space many of the things we have now would’ve taken us decades to separately develop. The space missions also led to an emphasis on science and math being taught more efficiently in school, so the next generation would be able to improve on the past findings. After the last apollo missions public interest in space withered and with it NASA's budget.
Even though NASA’s budget was cut drastically after the space race there are many who continue to complain about how much we spend on space research and call it a waste. A main concern many have is they would rather our money being allocated to helping those in poverty, or fixing pollution instead of wasting it on space. In actuality NASA is getting less than a sliver of the government's spending. According to the federal spending budget, $17 billion was given to NASA for its annual budget in 2015, yet it only accounts for less than .8% of total federal spending ( “Federal Spending” 1). Even at the height of the space race they were given 4.4% of the total federal budget showing in comparison with other sectors space research isn’t as big as a spending issue as people would like to think. $546 billion dollars, 18% of the federal budget, is the projected amount that will be spent on income security in 2016 which includes unemployment compensation, housing assistance, and food and nutrition assistance for the poor (“White house interactive Budget”). While $21.4 billion is being spent on pollution control. It goes to show that more money is being thrown to help the poverty issue than is being spent on space research, and those who choose to ignore that are simply helping spread the misinformation and misconceptions that are holding us back. From NASA’s iteration in 1958 to 2011 they’ve spent in total $526 billion dollars. Still less than how much we will be spending in 2016 to fight poverty.
Space missions for NASA were expensive at $450 million dollars a shuttle launch, but we were more restricted to that price by the science and technology we had than anything else ( Dunbar 1). One of the biggest expenditures for space exploration wasn’t getting to the moon, but just getting out of Earth's gravity and it still is. Nasa Engineer Don Pettit brings this to attention in his paper The Tyranny of The Rocket Equation.
"Travelling from the surface of Earth to Earth orbit is one of the most energy intensive steps of going anywhere else. This first step, about 400 kilometers away from Earth, requires half of the total energy needed to go to the surface of Mars. Destinations between the Earth and the Moon are only a fraction of that required to simply get into Earth orbit. The cost of this first step is due to the magnitude of Earth’s gravity. And physics dictates that paying a penny less than the full cost will result in Earth repossessing your spacecraft in a not so gentle way."(1)
The amount of propellant needed on a shuttle is astounding. The best we can balance that will actually get us to space is 85% of the spacecraft being propellant and 15% being the payload and structure, but that's at the edge of our engineering ability. Pettit made a good parallel to a soda can to simplify the imagery of how much gas is needed to break out of orbit. Regularly our rockets are 96% propellant and 4% structure. A soda can is comparable to a rocket in terms of useful material to actual structure when 94% of a soda can is drink while 6% is the can itself (1). If we were able to overcome this, and find a way to get out of Earth's orbit burning less fuel than the price of shuttle launches would be cut tremendously. Soon enough after that missions to space could be as regularized as airplane trips.
This is why we need more people getting into the science and engineering fields because someone can eventually solve this issue. Steps are already being taken now as space travel is not being left in the hands of the government anymore. Private businesses are now seeking to get into the business of space. Most popular right now is SpaceX founded by Elon Musk which recently made news in 2012 as it became the first private spaceflight company to deliver cargo to the International Space Station with its rocket the Falcon 9 carrying the Dragon spacecraft. The company strives to improve space exploration with it’s ultimate goal of getting people to live on other planets. Currently a key goal they hold is to create reusable rockets that will transform space exploration at a radically reduced cost. They’re doing well now with 50 launches to their manifest. While they’re currently holding contracts for commercial satellite launches, and with NASA to deliver cargo and astronauts if needed to. The pricing of a launch of the Falcon 9 is only $62.2 million compared to the $450 million a launch of the NASA Space Shuttle a 86.2% difference in cost (“Capabilities & Services” 1). It goes to show with some more research breakthroughs can be made. The Falcon 9 is a reusable rocket that after takeoff can safely return to earth unlike the external tank of the space shuttle which had to be remade for every launch. SpaceX's success will hopefully push for other private spaceflight companies to start coming out the woodwork, and start creating competition. With competition comes better technological advancements as the companies try to best one another.
In the grand scheme of things space exploration can only help us advance as a civilization. If the shift of space exploration were to go from government to private than a new industry could be created alongside with thousands of jobs. It would be the space equivalent of airline companies, but instead of sending people across countries they’d refining rocket science, space research, and completing missions out of Earth's orbit. Along with that we will be able to make advancements in to uses of space. For example one current mission of NASA’s is to redirect an asteroid to orbit the moon around the year 2020. If this can be done then we’ll be able to analyze the materials found on the asteroid and maybe even start mining asteroids. It may sound farfetched but is not in the realm of science fiction anymore. Space research may be the key to saving our planet and keeping the human race going.
Works Cited
"2016 Budget Interactive." The White House. The White House, n.d. Web. 14 Nov.
2015.
“Capabilities & Services” SpaceX. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Web. 28. November
2015
Daly, Erin Moore, and Robert Frodeman. “Separated at Birth, Signs of Rapprochement:
Environmental Ethics and Space Exploration”. Ethics and the Environment 13.1 (2008):
135–151. Web. 14 Nov. 2015
Dunbar, Brian. “Space Shuttle and International Space Station”. NASA. National Aeronautics
and Space Administration. 30 July. 2015 Web. Dec 1. 2015
"Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go." National Priorities Project. National
Priorities Project, n.d. Web. 13 Nov. 2015.
“Falcon 9.” SpaceX. Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Web. 28. November 2015
Lockney, Dan. “Spinoff Database.” NASA. NASA . Web. 11 Nov 2015.
Pettit, Don. "The Tyranny of the Rocket Equation." NASA. NASA, 01 May 2012. Web. 14 Nov.
2015.
Shreve, Bradley G.. “THE US, THE USSR, AND SPACE EXPLORATION, 1957-1963”.
International Journal on World Peace 20.2 (2003): 67–83. Web. 14 Nov. 2015
No comments:
Post a Comment