3/29/16; Unit 2 Project

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 50^th 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.