We have taken a step back from the cosmos. In the '60s and '70s, however, cold war nationalism fueled a space race that brought humans into earth orbit and then to the moon in less than a decade. But we soon discovered the Soviet space program was more interested with creating a space station that would orbit the Earth rather than reaching the moon. We followed suit and turned our backs to the moon and any hope of traveling beyond it. Robots and probes aside, we have given up on traveling through the depths of space and trekking new worlds. Performing experiments on a space station orbiting the Earth or travelling a few miles above the stratosphere in a privately-built spaceship do not constitute true space exploration. Today, our government -- and many others -- does not see the importance of travelling into the cosmos; thus, they underfund and neglect the space agencies.
Ever since the dawn of man, we have had a frontier to explore, and an instinctual and economical need to explore it. In this age, that frontier is space -- there is no doubt we humans will be a space-faring species, but it is our current generation that will decide whether we will remain Earth-bound for only a few more decades or many more centuries. The future posterity will applaud our initiative or criticize our ignorance of the cosmos. I do not wish for the latter, which is why we must consider increased funding for NASA and all the space agencies of the world.
We need to fix problems here on Earth first, many say. The economy, the climate crisis, the tensions between our nations and religions, these all are situations that rightfully take precedence over space exploration. We generally see these troubles as independent of one another, but they are not. Fundamentally, all of these problems reflect society's lack of any ambition and optimism for the future. Space exploration changes that -- it gives us hope for a future in the stars. Space exploration spurs innovation in a plethora of different fields that could be used to solve our current problems. The Apollo Moon missions led to an unprecedented number of innovations, such as computer microchips and CAT scanners that drove our technology sector as the world's best. Space exploration exposes the next generation of students to the STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) fields, stimulating them to strive for higher education -- a feat our government is so desperately trying to accomplish. Biology, chemistry, geology, math, physics, geometry, astronomy, astrophysics, mechanical engineering, electrical engineering -- all are encompassed in what NASA does on a daily basis. With an emergence of new innovations and professionals, our economic woes would rapidly be remedied.
Critics of space exploration say, "How would space exploration solve, say, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict?" But here lies space exploration's single greatest benefit: space unites us as a species. In space, we are more than just Muslims, Christians, Israelis, or Palestinians -- we are human. When Apollo 11 landed on the Moon and footage of Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong skipping across the surface was beamed to Earth, Americans exploded into jubilee. But something marvelous also occurred: It was not just Americans celebrating the feat. All across the world -- even some in the USSR -- people celebrated the first for mankind. If we are capable of landing on the moon, then we can solve any of the problems here on Earth.
Space exploration is too expensive, many say -- we should focus on spending more to help people than fund space agencies. If we take a look at the U.S. federal budget for 2012, 1.418 trillion dollars is allocated towards social programs throughout the Department of Health, Education, Housing, etc. However, compare that with the 925.2 billion dollars devoted solely on defense spending. NASA's budget for 2012 is 18.7 billion, a pitiful scrap left aside for more "beneficial" spending. But does the 700 billion we spend on defense really benefit society? Sure, the defense industry spurs innovation and jobs in the technology and aerospace industries, but NASA's work is primarily based on these industries as well. If NASA's budget were as large as the defense budget, the same industries would experience growth and innovation as they are now. Today, NASA's budget accounts for around half of a percent of the federal budget, or half a penny of every tax dollar. On a global scale, worldwide defense spending tops 1.6 trillion dollars. The global space spending, on the other hand, is an insignificant 71.5 billion dollars. But consider what 38 billion dollars has done: The International Space Station, the Hubble Telescope, the Mars rovers, and countless satellites and probes that scour the solar system that bring back valuable scientific data.
In front of a Congressional panel discussing the NASA budget, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the famed astrophysicist, ended his testimony by asking "How much would you pay for the universe?" Knowledge of the universe can be accessed with current technology and future innovations given that appropriate funding is allocated. But the ignorance remains. All plans for Mars explorations have been delayed to the 2030's, moon missions have been scrapped, and to top it off, 300 million dollars was cut from the planetary research branch of NASA for 2013. We can focus on problems here on Earth, but we cannot ignore the cosmos
Dirk Schulze-Makuch, Ph.D.: A Bold New Chance for Mars Exploration!
Jim Bell: A Turning Point at Mars
Zoe P. Strassfield: Happy Aerospace Holidays: Music for Yuri's Night
Good luck.
While manned exploration is a romantic, exciting possibility -- reality suggests otherwise. For example, we currently have very limited funds with 138 moons, asteroids, 7 planets and the sun plus deep space calling for our immediate attention.
How best to achieve those myriad goals? Ground based and satellite telescopes. Second, robotic technology is cheap proven durable hardware linking scientists (and the public), all over the world with telemetry, and no mission time constraints, anywhere in the solar system.
You may think NASA is a sleeping giant, but Opportunity, Spirit and Curiosity (in flight to Mars) are amazing technological engineering feats that provide years of ongoing scientific endeavor. Are you aware robotic missions are scientist's mission of choice? We were able to land on Saturn's moon Titan with Cassini's probe Huygens and now know quite a bit about the moon.
In an ideal world, with unlimited funding, manned exploration would be quite an adventure. Unfortunately, it's extremely expensive to escape our gas cocoon; requiring artificial environment, limited mission goals and perfect execution (so no one dies). Plus, human physiology isn't designed/evolved for space exploration and there are serious detrimental effects related to long term exposure requiring artificial gravity for any potentially long term mission (requiring one more layer of very expensive technological perfection).
BTW,thanks to your gracious comment to thoroughly substandard concon on the Mars thread, I twice faved one of the most knowledgeable people here. We may not like him, but we nonetheless acknowledge his expertise. And in this case, he did not act like a snooty know-it-all.
The day before he first responded to a comment of mine, he faved me. A pair of researchers wrote about their work that showed the tranquilizing effects of religion. I read the article and all of the comments. Appallingly, no one gave credit where credit was due. So I posted that Marx wrote religion is the opiate of the masses 150 years ago.
We both have the capability and the desire to make great leaps in human expansion - building the infrastructure outside of Earth's gravity well which will allow us to survive outside a single biosphere.
And I don't say this lightly. I had a very satisfying personal career in science taking me from nowhere to CERN and a space project. But I have also been in the room when it came down to dollars and political schemes. And that, trust me, is an ugly, ugly business, that is much closer to illuminating the depths of human psychology than it is to scanning the rim of the visible universe.
Unfortunately, what can be done in science, and what can not be, is not only guided by the laws of nature, but also by the laws of economics and politics. The sooner you learn that lesson, the more successful you will be in "big science".
We've been keeping a very keen eye on it using very cunningly devised machines.
Almost every cunningly designed machine can replace the human eye. Humans are needed to design, target and interpret. This is not a negative thing - it makes more effective use of talent.
And this is the point where I have to shake my head in disbelief about how desperate some people are to argue a losing proposition...
Gvt. space operations produced a Return on Investment of 6:1....that's very good - no wonder they want to do away with it. Private space seeks to generate funds for a President/CEO/Board of Directors. If it doesn't have PROFIT - why do it at all?
Gvt. SHOULD be at the forfront of exploration -and be seen as a guide to usher in a new generation of private exploreres. We are many years away from this being a reality. What SpaceX is attempting pales in camparison to anything the gvt. has done.....it's essentially an expensive kite.
"Gvt. space operations produced a Return on Investment of 6:1"
Can you please prove that? I have NEVER seen any indication that this is even borderline true. Current NASA spending is $16 billion a year. If you were correct, all we needed to pay off the national debt is to expand it to $200 billion a year, since that would return $1.2 trillion in economic profit. Do you really believe that?
"Gvt. SHOULD be at the forfront of exploration"
That's where it is right now. Did you see ANY private company send a probe to Pluto lately?