One More Step for
Mankind
From the depths of the deep
darkness and static that poured into living rooms across the country, one
immortal line broke the silence and put meaning to a millennium: “one small
step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” In less than a decade, the American
space program was able to transform a long-shot goal into arguably the biggest
scientific achievement of the twentieth century. These ten simple words,
uttered by a single man, represented the collective feelings of an entire
nation. At long last, years of hard work and billions of taxpayer dollars had
finally become worth it. For the first time since Columbus, the tangible world
as we knew it was expanding, and with it, the realm of possibilities. To many,
our American manned space system seems to have regressed since the time of the Apollo
missions, and the truth is, they are mostly right. For a wide variety of
different reasons, we are not even capable of returning to the moon at the
moment, let alone expanding our reach to Mars. As it stands, our technology is
closer to allowing us to travel to Mars than at any point in our history, yet
major technological roadblocks still stand in the way, and the American public
refuses to supply the financial and moral support needed to finish the project.
If we want to see a man on Mars before the end of our lifetimes, the time to
act is now (Bergin).
Fifty
years ago, the world was a much different place than it now is. The design and
construction of the Apollo spacecraft, and accompanying Saturn rocket, had a
much larger socioeconomic impact on the American public than any science
experiment in history. From the launch of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, in
1957 until the Apollo moon landing twelve years later, the space race provided
an avenue outside the battlefield in which earth’s two superpowers could wage
war. Following President Kennedy’s famous guarantee in 1961 to “land a man on
the moon… before the decade is out,” failure truly was not an option (Garber).
Even with a processing system less powerful than a modern cell phone, America
was able to put men on the moon, a feat many believed could not be done.
Spurred by the surprise Russian launch of Sputnik, and the fear of what this
launch represented, Americans felt like they had no other choice but to take
drastic measures in the waning years of the 1950’s. Fueled by overarching fear
and scientific ambition, the 1960’s marked a new era in scientific exploration.
Over a ten year period, the American government spent a whopping 25 billion
dollars towards the ultimate creation of the Apollo spacecraft, the equivalent
of well over 170 billion dollars in today’s money. In the immediate aftermath
of Kennedy’s space promise, NASA’s budget was increased by some 500% over its
previous mark; America was determined to put a man on the moon, and no cost was
too great (The Space Race).
Today,
however, NASA receives less than 1/5 the budget it did during the Apollo era
after being adjusted for inflation, and much of that money is surprisingly
spent on things such as climate research and aircraft development. When it
comes to technology, Americans are all too willing to fork over piles of cash
to get their hands on the latest iPhone or laptop, but when it comes to
technology that can actually make an impact on the word and the greater good,
many Americans are far too tight-pocketed. Naysayers claim that the money NASA
receives would serve a better cause if it were spent here on earth instead, but
if Americans are willing to spend $700+ on a new cell phone every two years,
then they can surely handle the $8/year tax increase that would be required to
return to NASA to global prominence. Over the course of the 2016 fiscal year,
NASA is slated to take in 18.5 billion dollars of the federal budget, which is
no small amount by any standards. In the big picture, however, this amount
corresponds to less than 1% of the total federal budget for 2016, making
financial resources more of limiting factor to space exploration than any
technological factor (Brooks). When questioned in a 1997 poll, the average
American estimated that 20 percent of the nations budged went toward NASA and
space exploration, explaining why many were, and still are, so reluctant to
expand the budget of NASA; so where does this huge misunderstanding come from?
This is not the first time that our
space program has faced economic restrictions, however. Nearly fifty years ago,
America faced a similar problem: during the 1970’s NASA proposed a massive
project that would have put men on Mars, built an international space station,
and even colonized the moon, but because of long term budget gaps, that
project, along with every major project since, has failed to get off the ground
(Deng). Based on the rate of scientific growth of the 1960’s and what we were
able to accomplish during that period, there is no doubt to me that putting a
man on Mars is not a matter of “can we,” but a matter of “are we willing to.”
Since the late 1970’s, the idea of putting a man on Mars has seemed like the
carrot dangling in front of us; always so close, but always just out of reach. Just
three years from now we will have reached the 50th anniversary of
Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, and maybe then there will be enough
renewed interest to support the push to put a man on Mars, but at the current
moment, the motivation just isn’t there. Just this month, the astronaut legend
himself, Neil Armstrong, voiced his opinion on the matter, saying that he
expects 2040 to be a reasonable date to see a man on Mars, a date that fits the
beliefs of many in the industry with knowledge. Essentially, his logic comes
from the fact that assuming that 2019 milestone does raise enough interest in
the space program to jumpstart the program, he believes it would still take 20
years for the vision to actually become reality (Galant).
In the technology-obsessed America
we now know, it truly is a shame that our countries’ space program isn’t seen
for what it is truly capable of producing. I think that many people see NASA at
this point as sort of a pot to throw leftover change into at the end of the
month, but many don’t see the economic and technological impacts the program
has on our everyday lives. At a cost of roughly $25 billion dollars, the total
cost of putting the first man on the moon still stands as one of the most
expensive endeavors ever carried out by the United States government, but what
many people don’t realize is that within space expenditures like this, NASA
isn’t just blasting their money off into space, the money invested into the
space program is reinvested into the economy through economic kickbacks and job
creations (Deng). According to the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City,
Missouri, the roughly $25 billion spent on the Apollo Mission over a decade
span between 1958 and 1969, had already returned $52 billion to the US economy
by the year 1971 when the research was conducted, and was expected to top $175
billion in total kickbacks and income tax collections by the year 1987 (Brooks).
The thing the general public needs to understand is that space research is
about so much more than just discovering the secrets of tomorrow, it is an
investment both for our economy and for the future of man; every dollar devoted
to NASA is another dollar that is going back into the US economy, either
through direct NASA payroll or through one of the infinite number of
independent contractors. Even for the government all is not lost. Through the
creation of jobs and business sector output, the government reclaims much of
the money back through income taxes, meaning that the long term cost of many
large projects is actually significantly lower than advertised. Naysayers of the NASA program are quick to
point out the large price tag on the agency, but hide the fact that over the
last several decades, every dollar spent on NASA has returned 10 dollars to the
national economy, pointing that NASA is not the money pit many make it out to be,
but rather an investment for the future, one that can help lead towards the
long term success of the nation(Atkinson).
The never-ending quest for the
latest and greatest technologies has influenced the direction of societal
evolution probably more than any other one thing over the past couple of
decades, but when it comes to manned space exploration within recent years,
just the opposite reaction seems to be occurring to the general public. It seems
to me like, because people think the technologies associated with space
exploration won’t help them farther their image or status in society, they
aren’t willing to give up the same things they would for a new smartphone or
smart-tv. In reality, however, the technologies NASA produces impact our daily
lives more than hardly anyone could imagine. Even if one isn’t interested in
uncovering the great mysteries of outer space, probing for alien life forms, or
understanding the nature of space and time, the benefits NASA provides, both
financially and technologically, couldn’t be more pronounced even here at home.
Even with the measly funding it now receives, NASA still leads the way in many
areas of American innovation including disciplines that stray from aeronautic
or astronautic travel. Without NASA, we would not have memory foam, cordless
power tools, solar panels, freeze dried food, or any other of the seemingly
infinite number of technologies developed by NASA, a dedication to innovation
forever insured through the Space Act of 1958, which states that “NASA's research
and technological innovations must benefit everyone, not just astronauts”
(Mann). In short, without the technology that NASA unlocks on their path to
greater purposes, we would not have the very technology like tablets and
laptops that we clamor over.
The technology required to get a am
to mars is similar to the new technology being created all over the world, yet at
the same time, it is also very different. Because of the financial tourniquet
NASA has been dealing with over the last several decades, our current
technology stands far away from where it would have to be to put a man on Mars.
Even compared to the moon landings of the 1960’s and 70’s, a Mars landing is
difficult on a scale rarely seen before in human history. Putting a man on Mars
brings challenges that we have never had to consider before, and without
adequate funding, it could be many more decades before the financial resources
are there to complete this technology (Mann). When I asked my peers questions
about our current space program, many seemed interested, but few had much idea
at all on the current situation of the program, an issue that speaks to the
lack of knowledge and involvement of mainstream America. Like former Nasa chief
technologist Bobby Braun says, however, “the good news is that there's nothing
technologically impossible about a manned Mars mission. It's just a matter of
deciding it's a priority and putting the time and money into developing the
necessary tools.” An event like the landing of man on mars is an event that
comes around only once or twice a century, and if we want to see the
culmination of this project within our lifetimes, the time to act is now. The
decision to shoot for mars isn’t something that can come to tuition overnight,
it is a long-term project; a technological investment rarely paralleled by any terrestrial
project.
Sources:
Atkinson, Nancy. "8 Ridiculous Things Bigger than
NASA’s Budget." Universe Today. N.p., 27 May 2009. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.
Bergin, Chris. "NASA Told to Resolve SLS Upper Stage
Dilemma." NASA Told to Resolve SLS Upper Stage Dilemma.
N.p., 30 June 201. Web. 27 Sept. 2015.
Brooks, Jeff. "Putting NASA’s Budget in
Perspective." The Space Review:. Spacenews, 2 July 2007. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.
Deng, Boer. "The One Thing Republicans and Democrats
Agree About Is Very Expensive Space Flight." Www.slate.com.
N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015.
Galant, Richad. "Bill Nye: U.S. Risks Losing Its Space
Edge." Cnn.com. CNN, 2 July 2012. Web. 8 Dec. 2015.
Garber, Steve. "The Decision to Go to the Moon: President
John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 Speech before
Congress." NASA History Vault. National Aeronaautics and Space
Association, 29 Oct.
2013. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.
Mann, Adam. "Why We Can't Send Humans to Mars Yet, and
How We'll Fix That (Wired UK)." Wired UK. N.p.,
31 May 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2016.
"The Space Race." History.com. A&E Television
Networks, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015.