Pros and Cons of continuing Space Exploration - Coursework Example

Pros and Cons of continuing Space Exploration with a supporting claim to continue funding the NASA Space Program. COVER STORY During the heat of the space race in the 1960s, NASA decided it needed a ballpoint pen to write in the zero gravity confines of its space capsules. After considerable research and development, the Astronaut Pen was developed at a cost of approximately $1 million US dollars. The pen worked and also enjoyed some modest success at a novelty item back here on earth. The Soviet Union, faced with the same problem, used a pencil. ABSTRACT NASA and its voluminous funding by the US government have been burning questions from day one. While the proponents of NASA funding have a firm belief that even a penny invested in its prolific research programs will reap insurmountable benefits for the world and humanity in general, the people who condemn NASA and its so-called good for nothing activities have a strong contention that that the profusion of funds that NASA uses are neither worth it nor serviceable for mankind. In this research paper we try to analyse both sides of the argument and try to reach a conclusion as to why the US government should work to dilate the funding of NASA programs, and what should be the role of NASA administration in this regard. NASA AND ITS PROJECT HISTORY In the period starting from 1958 till 2008, the total spending on NASA has been $471.23 billion dollars, which makes an average of $9.06 billion per year. NASAs budget for FY 2008 sums up to $17.318 billion, which is almost 0.6% of the $2.9 trillion United States federal budget for the year, and almost about 35% total academic scientific research spending in the United States. These figures might look huge but the point of consideration is that they have enabled NASA to provide humanity with some emphatic developments and research successes. The most prominent discoveries and developments of NASA are the Pioneer 10, Voyager 1 and 2, Hubble Telescope, Space Shuttle Program, Apollo 13, Mars Pathfinder, and Moon Landing. These benchmarks have proved that the funding provided to the agency was fully utilized for productive purposes. These days there is a contention about whether NASA would be able to carry out on its latest Constellation Program that aims at retiring the space shuttle this year, replacing it Orion (capsule- based vehicles), and luner landers and Space Launch System, etc. But all these prospects rest on the simple debate that whether the amount being spent in this area is really worth it, especially when American debt is making life tougher for the Finance Ministry day in and day out. THE DARK SIDE OF NASA OPERATIONS: It is a known fact that most of NASA’s projects face huge research flaws and take a lot of effort and financial input to rectify those flaws. For example, the Space Launch system that is currently being worked on has billion dollars and still, there are massive security and sustainability issues popping up that place doubts in the minds of the government as to whether the mission would remain viable or not. Another major loss incurred by NASA was the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter in 1999 in which $327.6 million was invested for the orbiter and Lander and $193.1 million was invested for spacecraft development. Also, $91.7 million and $42.8 million were incurred in launching the mission and operating the activities respectively. This shows that the NASA operations and research efforts, no matter how object oriented they are, always carry huge risks that could not be averted at any cost. This, however, can only be considered an overgeneralization because the success rate of some of NASA’s operations is very high. For example, NASA’s launch service program enjoys 98% success rate that is unparalleled. Similarly, the ULA, United Launch Alliance, has made 50 Delta II launches with 100% success rate completing a wide array of exceptionally imperative science missions. Also with the long list of accomplishments like those mentioned above, such figures get trivialized and certainly worth disregarding. US DEBT CRISIS AND THE BLAME ON NASA: With the disturbing news of US economic recession and the growing debt problems, it is not surprising that NASA becomes the major target of criticism. During the 1960’s, when the Apollo project was at its pinnacle, the budget allocation for NASA contributed to almost five percent of the US federal budget. In monetary terms, this was calculated to be $5,933 million out of the total budget of $134,532 million. Furthermore, the amount in nominal terms has continued to grow. For its budget of 2007, NASA requested a sum of $17 billion, which is certainly humongous. There are also reports that the space agency would be aided with an additional sum of $5.9 billion over five years to encourage in order to enable private companies to build, launch and operate their own spacecrafts. NASA would pay the private companies to carry US astronauts to space. In a scenario where the United States is in debt of $8,835 billion, it is certainly questionable whether research programs like those of NASA have to be funded or not. But there is certainly another side of the case that most of the people seem to heed. The percentage of the total federal budget taken up by NASA has never been more than 5%. In fact, it reached above 4% only from 1964 to 1966. Other than that, the percentage has remained in the range below 2%. In 2007 the total federal budget of America was about $2.784 trillion while the amount spent on NASA was about $16.143 billion, which makes a meagre percentage figure of 0.58%. This can easily prove that the hues and cries on the spending of NASA are only hoax calls which need not be considered. In the same year, the budget allocation for defense, exclusive of the budget of the department of homeland security, was $609 billion which is 38 times the amount spent on NASA. While the defense budget is being considered, perhaps the best example of inadequacy of NASA funding would be that of a B-2 stealth bomber. The bomber costs roughly $2.2 billion while the “New Horizons Robotic Mission” for Pluto that would reveal fundamental facts about the solar system costs $650 million. While new consignments for B-2 bombers are issued, the mission to Pluto was abandoned due to the claim of lack of funds even though it costs one third of that of a single B-2 bomber. Despite the bleak financial position that the organization is facing, the way in which NASA has achieved its objectives is quite striking and impressive. NASA AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY DEBATE Another point of contention that is taken up by the antagonists of NASA is that the amount spent on NASA could have done wonders had it been invested in the social programs. In this regard, the huge cumulative amount that has been spent from 1958 to date on the NASA projects arouses suspicion and doubt. People might also argue that these projects have been centered on space exploration and are not really directed towards the earth. This is, indeed, true because till the last decade, the major aim of NASA was space exploration. Even considering all these arguments does not trivialize the integral role played by NASA in the field of science. As far as these arguments are concerned, the counterarguments are always valid. Just to consider the emphasis of spending on the social sector, it is enough to say that for every dollar spent by US for NASA, it spends $98 on social works. For 2007, US expenditure on human services, housing and urban development and social security etc. amounted to a whopping $1.581 trillion. If this amount is compared to the amount spent on NASA, there is a huge gap which obviously nullifies the contention. SOLVING PROBLEMS ON EARTH BEFORE AIMING FOR SPACE: As discussed earlier, one major point of consideration is that instead of aiming for space exploration, the scientists should work for the betterment of the mother earth and the environment in specific. They contend that while the world is engaged in potentially devastating threats like global warming and pollution, the emphasis of NASA on space excavation and its lavish expenditure in this regard is certainly intriguing and unacceptable. But NASA has answered this contention too. It has announced programs that shift attention from space operations to technology development and science focused on earth protection vision. The major focus of NASA is climate change and it has started programs that would create platform for the countries of the world to come together and professionally and technically analyze the climate change process and work for the betterment of the entire mankind. NASA also claims that the program would reduce its budgetary spending by $1 billion. ROLE OF NASA IN THE ENTIRE CONTEXT: Having proved how important it is for NASA to continue receiving funds to carry out its research and development, we also have to consider that NASA has a very heavy responsibility on its shoulders. IT has to make sure that it does not overindulge in the race against space warriors like Russia and China. It has to make sure that it keeps the cheaper context in mind rather than repeating mistakes like the one mentioned in the cover story. Although it seemed that NASA has learned from its mistakes and started to target environmental protection as well, there is a long way to go and it has to work on these projects on a continuous basis in order to positively answer the criticism against it. Similarly, it has to work researching and producing cost effective technology gadgets in order to curtail their budgetary expenditures. Another important area of emphasis for NASA should be that it should not engage in technology war and competition with space research authorities of countries like China and Russia. Instead, it should work to reconcile differences and try to work collaboratively to serve mankind. CONCLUSION In the entire research paper we have analysed how much important it is for NASA to continue its operations despite facing a long list of criticism. But we can certainly see that these criticisms are done only for the sake of criticism. Hence, we conclude that US funding to NASA should not be stopped; however, it is also the responsibility of NASA to fully utilize these funds and develop efficient means to achieve its objectives. Works Cited Vaughan, D. The Challenge Launch: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Launius, Roger D. “Public Opinion Polls and Perceptions of US Human Spaceflight .” 19 june 2003. www.sciencedirect.com. Muck, Pamela. “Space History.” Society for history and technology. Vl3 (1993). Smith, R.W. “The Space Telescope. A Study of NASA, Science, Technology, and Politics.” (1993): 528. Tyson, Neil Degrasse. Space Chronicles. 2012. Read More