As we celebrate the success of the Curiosity rover on Mars and reflect on the remarkable life of Neil Armstrong, it's not hard to imagine what amazing achievements in space exploration can be accomplished/attained in the next few decades. However, not everyone is supportive of exploring space. Skeptics are often heard saying: "How can we explore space when there is so much poverty in the world?" Although poverty unquestionably is a problem in this nation and around the world, stopping our exploration of space is unlikely to reduce poverty. On the contrary, it would almost certainly be counterproductive to the worldwide poverty issue.
It is important to realize that the NASA budget represents less than half of one percent of the federal budget. By comparison, social programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and other similar programs, account for over fifty percent of the budget. In other words, the annual budget for U.S. social programs is are more than 100 times greater than what NASA receives. To say that curtailing missions like Curiosity will solve our poverty problems is therefore false and hopelessly misguided. Even if we eliminated NASA completely, it would have a negligible impact on the total budget. It would be a drop on the budgetary bucket as NASA's budgets equals approximately two days of federal spending. This is still a lot of money, but far removed from what would be necessary to eliminate poverty even for a short time.
In reality, a focused and well-conceived space program has the strong potential to improve society -- reducing problems here at home. How?
First of all, all funding for space missions is spent here on Earth. It pays the salaries of some of the top scientists, engineers, inventors, and innovators in the world. These are the types of high-paying technical jobs that we constantly hear television pundits say are essential for the future competitiveness of the country and for maintaining a vibrant economy that will help keep thousands of people employed.
Probably no other federal agency has the power to inspire students to pursue STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) education like NASA does when it has a focused and sustainable mission. If students actually believe we will be sending humans to Mars during the first half of their career, they will become engaged and many of them will enter science, engineering, and technology fields to be part of this great adventure. But the impact will not be limited to students. Committing to a human mission to Mars by 2030 will set a new tone for the nation -- one that can be a powerful catalyst for innovation and economic strength over the next several decades.
Investment in education and social programs are essential, but confidence in a limitless future can be a powerful motivator to allow students and others to raise themselves out of poverty. The Apollo program inspired millions and can be directly traced to many aspects of the technology and communications revolution of the following decades. Space technology is used every day in food production, weather forecasting, national security, and these technologies are connecting traditionally poor areas to the global community -- providing them new tools to lift themselves out of poverty.
We have two choices: We can decide to wait for utopia to materialize before we explore space and do other bold endeavors, or we can take risks, embrace innovation, and continue our tradition of exploration now, despite the fact that we live in an imperfect world. It is even possible that the achievements of human space exploration can develop the means to improve the world for us all through innovating energy production, water and air purification, food production or a myriad of other innovations that cannot even be imagined today. This combined with the potential for scientific discovery in space itself makes space exploration a bargain within the federal budget.
Rather than being "a penny wise, and a 'ton' foolish," by cutting our investment in space exploration, we should aim to spend every dollar as productively as possible and show the nation and the world that we are still on top. People in the United States need inspiration, and the modest sum that is spent on space will not eliminate poverty if those funds were redirected for that purpose. Yet it can give them inspiration and hope; showing them that humans can do great things when given the chance. Let's honor the memory and dreams of Neil Armstrong. Let's continue his small step by landing astronauts on Mars by the year 2030.
Chris Carberry is Executive Director of Explore Mars, Inc. Artemis Westenberg is President of Explore Mars, Inc.
This post is part of the HuffPost Shadow Conventions 2012, a series spotlighting three issues that are not being discussed at the national GOP and Democratic conventions: The Drug War, Poverty in America, and Money in Politics.
HuffPost Live will be taking a comprehensive look at the persistence of poverty in America August 29th and September 5th from 12-4 pm ET and 6-10 pm ET. Click here to check it out -- and join the conversation.
Many believe we shouldn't spend money on space until we solve all our problems here. Sounds reasonable, but this offers little more than false hope. Just when will all our problems be solved? How can this be measured, and who declares this accomplished? How many nations, governments, companies, organizations or people do you know that have solved all of their problems? Humanity isn't going to solve all its problems, ever. We are too dynamic, always solving problems and creating more at the same time, and forever continuing this cycle as we endlessly evolve. We go into space for reasons that humans have historically gone elsewhere; to find resources and freedom, to create better lives. If humans didn't leave home until all was well, all six billion of us would still be in Mesopotamia, crowded and miserable.
See the complete article at http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04t.html
Jeff Krukin
www.jeffkrukin.com
Mars remains red, but we did know that.
In any case... the $2.5 billion is NOT strapped as a bundle of cash to the rover, it has been spent on AMERICAN engineers here in the US. Which is a way better use of money than what you do when you go shopping at Walmart.
Yawn.
So going to Mars under Bush was wrong and saying that we will send someone to Mars within 20 years was inhumane but no that Obama is President this is the right path. Man you can't make this stuff up.
Thankfully Bush didn't listen to the Liberals and was the First President to put a Rover on Mars.
Mars/manned exploration won't even provide 1% scientific advancement as James Webb Space Telescope near 2020. And you can forget Opportunity, Spirit, and Curiosity type robotic missions to asteroids, 138 moons, sun or rest of the outer planets. Those projects will be scuttled indefinitely due to lack of funding.
Robotic engineering advancements will provide and translate into real economic boost you desire providing greatest benefit scientifically with least expense.
Soon enough, in years to come, likely, robotic missions will even employ IMAX type cameras providing an interesting visual experience for all of us. Seems best and logical for us to recognize our physical limitations and invest in robotic exploration.
-
Okay, it's time for your meds, now.
http://www.space.com/658-lunar-shields-radiation-protection-moon-based-astronauts.html
Ultimately, we must decide if humanity will continue to drag its knuckles in the dirt like chimps or if we will take to the stars and spread civilization across the cosmos; thus insuring our survival as the only known forms of intelligent life anywhere in the universe.
...Ditto...Ditto...!!
Fanned/favored
J.B.
What's wrong with the moon? We know how to get there. There are few resources there, but the logistics of keeping it supplied are tiny compared to keeping a Mars colony alive. As you're building there, build ships that pull resources from the asteroids. Refine it on the moon, build items for use on Earth, and sell them to defray costs. Just processing the nickel ore and building electric car batteries would remove a huge source of pollution while providing technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.
Meanwhile, keep an eye on Mars. At some point we'll figure out cheaper ways to push resources around and then maybe put people on Mars. Cosmic accidents may be rare, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't think it a huge priority, but it should be something we're discussing.
Stop looking for dead Martian bacteria. It won't matter if we find it. We have more pressing problems and a lunar colony would help solve those much more easily and cheaply. If nothing else, pushing most of our heavily polluting industries to the moon would be of great benefit.