Spaceflight Insider

OPINION: “Earth first” – an emotional argument lacking understanding of the facts

International Space Station ISS orbit Earth Soyuz spacecraft NASA photo posted on SpaceFlight Insider

The argument that humanity would be better served by investing the funds spent on spaceflight on more terrestrial concerns - is based off emotion - and deeply flawed. Photo Credit: NASA

Every year NASA spends an average of about $18 billion on its various activities. What has that purchased? How much of that comes out of the pockets of the U.S. taxpayer? The facts are surprising and the lack of gratitude and ignorance spread about NASA’s budget – is disappointing. This is made worse by the argument raised since the very beginning of the Space Age that we need to focus on Earthly concerns first. Anyone, with even the most basic understandings of human history knows that this argument is based off of emotion – and will only serve to injure humanity’s chances for long-term survival.

The International Space Station (ISS), to date has cost $150 billion, $50 billion of that was paid by American taxpayers since 1994. The total cost of the Space Shuttle Program: $200 billion, that includes the cost of the refurbishment of Launch Complexes A and B, astronaut training the facilities, expendables and infrastructure to operate the program. Each mission cost an estimated $450 million. Humanity’s greatest journey to date – cost even less than the shuttle program.

Space shuttle Atlantis plume Kennedy Space Center Launch Complex 39 NASA  photo posted on SpaceFlight Insider

While the road to orbit might be expensive – the benefits of what we receive upon reaching this point – are uncountable. Photo Credit: NASA

Apollo, the effort that saw six missions send crew to walk on another world – cost $23.9 billion. This relatively low cost, considering what was accomplished has caused some historians to call Apollo a “gift” to the U.S. taxpayer. In fact, some of the most wasteful space-related expenses – have been caused by the actions of politicians – not the agency itself.

NASA had already invested an estimated $9 billion (there appears to be some evidence that this might have gone as high as $14 billion in order for NASA to cover the cost of cancelling contracts) on the Constellation Program, even going so far as to renovate Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39B and conducting a single test flight of the Ares-1-X booster – before President Barack Obama attempted to cancel virtually all aspects of NASA’s crewed deep space exploration efforts. Thankfully, elements of the program were salvaged and NASA is still working to send crews to destinations such as an asteroid and Mars.

Given the chaos inflicted on NASA by the present administration, it should come as no surprise that opponents, oblivious to the fact that NASA’s budget is about one half of one cent of every tax dollar. A conversation with these individuals immediately conveys a total lack of knowledge regarding space exploration efforts.

To say that those who push this concept are ill-informed (at best) is an understatement of interstellar proportions (pun intended). The following statement sums up their argument:

“We need to deal with the economic, environmental and social issues first! This is the oft-repeated refrain from those decrying how ‘trillions’ of dollars are being paid for the elite to go up to the Moon or ‘wherever’ and do whatever it is they do up there.”

Seriously? If you don’t have a clue regarding which you speak – don’t speak.

ISS spacewalk International Space Station astronaut EVA extra vehicular activity NASA photo posted on SpaceFlight Insider

NASA has been asked to do more – while receiving no appreciable raise in its long-term budget. Moreover, it has been repeatedly set on a directive – only to have the directive be altered according to the political winds. Photo Credit: NASA

There’s nothing wrong with wanting humanity to get its act together before going deep out into the cosmos. But anyone who takes a look at humanity knows one inescapable fact. As long as there have been people there has been war, disease, terrorism, illiteracy, bigotry, famine, disaster and death. Those that think $18.7 billion will suddenly change that – are either stunningly ignorant – or being willfully dishonest.

How would cancelling the space program help any of these problems? Anyone who takes a millisecond to consider this argument – realizes that it is based off of emotion – and is devoid of rational thought.

NASA Kennedy Space Center Vehicle Assembly Building VAB space shuttle Atlantis STS-135 photo credit Andy Sokol Turbofox photography posted on SpaceFlight Insider

NASA has retired its fleet of space shuttles and has been trying to get back to the business of sending crews to destinations in deep space for the past decade. Their efforts have been hampered predominantly by the changing political winds. Photo Credit: Andy Sokol / Turbofox Photography

In the end, those who push this sentiment – suffer from myopia – they are simple people who lack the ability to see the bigger picture. Our planet is only really capable of sustaining a population of about 4 billion. We are nearing 7 billion. Worse still, Earth has already gone through about 98 percent of its habitable life (that part of the planet’s lifespan where it is capable of supporting life). However, maybe if we focus on just one problem at a time – perhaps then their argument has some merit?

It is estimated that a mere $30 billion a year could end world hunger. Surely that $200 billion we spend on the Space Shuttle and $50 billion America spent on the ISS could have stamped out world hunger?

Unlikely. Since 2010, NASA’s annual budget has been fairly static at around $17 billion. At its peak, in 1966, when NASA received 4.41 percent of the federal budget, that would have translated in today’s dollars into about $43 billion. In other words, even at its most extravagant, the money spent on space would have run out in little more than a year just on feeding the hungry—to say nothing about the other world problems people believe defunding NASA would solve.

In FY 2013, NASA received 0.49 percent of the Federal budget, or about $16 billion, in a country with a gross national product of $17.06 trillion.

Astronomer Phil Plait pointed out that “For the cost of less than a single day on the War on Terror, we could have a robust and far-reaching program to explore Mars, look for signs of life on another planet, increase our overall science knowledge, and inspire a future generation of kids.”

What about education? Wouldn’t all that money spent on space be better spent on education? Actually the Department of Education’s budget is $77.4 billion, orders of magnitude more than NASA has ever received. Ending spaceflight would scarcely make a difference. What about medical research? The NIH invests $30 billion a year in medical research. NASA’s $17 billion would be a pittance.

Actually, many of our Earthly problems that people think ending spaceflight would help to solve—are already being solved by space research. And as a matter of fact, NASA is heavily involved in medical research. Aside from the spin-off technologies, which include pacemakers, MRIs, tiny transmitters to monitor a fetus while still inside the womb, voice-controlled wheelchairs, tools for cataract surgery, and many others—research aboard the space shuttle and the International Space Station has already yielded medical benefits that are saving lives.

Russian Federal Space Agency Roscosmos Soyuz Progress NASA photo posted on SpaceFlight Insider

Space Agencies across the globe have learned to make due with marginal funding. Spacecraft that can trace their lineage back to the earliest days of the Space Age – still take to the skies. Photo Credit: NASA

Astrogenetix is a company specifically dedicated to medical research in space, and has already experimented possible vaccines for Salmonella and MRSA. Research on long-term effects of weightlessness could yield life-changing results for people on Earth. According to astronaut John Blaha, “…a mission to Mars will not be feasible until a cure is found for osteoporosis—and for that, he says the International Space Station is a necessity.”

Weather reports generally comes with a satellite image. If you live in an area prone to hurricanes or tornadoes, your very life can depend on satellites stationed 22,000 up in geosynchronous orbit, or at 350 miles in polar orbits. But those satellites don’t just monitor the clouds; they also monitor ocean currents, snow melt, burn-off in gas and oil fields, volcanic ash, pollution, and the Antarctic ozone hole.

Clearly our embryonic space program has already brought us a wealth of benefits, and that’s only from 1957 to the present day.

Launch of United Launch Alliance Atlas V with Worldview 3 United Launch Alliance ULA photo posted on SpaceFlight Insider

Spaceflight is hard, the fact that certain companies have demonstrated the capability to launch at a reliable interval – should be rewarded. Instead, when an issue does crop up, the public doesn’t treat this as an anomaly – but as a cause to shut everything down. Photo Credit: ULA

We still have a long way to go. The long-term benefits of each of our space program is debatable, largely because the focus of the space program keeps changing. The Apollo Moon landings may have led to a base on the Moon—but the Apollo Program was canceled. The Constellation Program would have returned American astronauts to the Moon and sent a crewed mission to Mars—but it was canceled. The International Space Station may yet serve as a vital stepping stone to missions to Mars, although today NASA has no definite mission, so the future is very much in doubt.

This is not due to a lack of vision within NASA – but rather one ingrained into the United States’ political leaders – which get their cues from the voter. Therefore, sadly, some aspects of what NASA is doing – is viewed as little more than a jobs issue within certain states. As with so many things, it all comes down to money.

But why spend so much on a space program when we’re in the middle of an economic crisis? Answer: there is no better time. The reason we’re not seeing enormous economic and tangible benefits from today’s space program is because it’s so tiny. A well-funded space program would put billions of dollars into the private sector—remember, not a single penny is spent in space; it’s all spent on Earth. Depending on the size of the program, it could create thousands of jobs across the country—indeed, across the world. New and unforeseen technological marvels could transform civilization. New materials, new sources of energy, new medical breakthroughs, and new scientific discoveries would benefit everyone.

In other words, if we made the decision to invest as a nation in the space program, it would improve the quality of life—and would give us a new and exciting frontier, something that has lacked for more than a century. But we would have to accept that spaceflight is hard and dangerous. So what? Take a look at the early European pioneers’ explorations of the New World.

Apollo_program_insignia NASA image posted on SpaceFlight Insider

The Apollo Program, which cost about $29.5 billion, arguably achieved one of the greatest accomplishments in human history. Why are we, as a people, so unwilling to spend so little – on something so magnificent? Image Credit: NASA

It’s hard to move out of your parents’ house into your first apartment. But if you only go halfway, you never get there. Right now our space program isn’t even going halfway, it’s barely getting off the ground.

As noted earlier, there are vital and fundamental reasons that we must get off the Earth.

On Feb. 15, 2013, a fragment of an asteroid hit the Earth’s atmosphere and exploded 18 miles over Chelyabinsk, Russia, resulting in 1,491 injuries and 7,200 damaged buildings. The asteroid in question – was tiny, a microscopic representative of the titans that exist at our cosmic doorstep.

Chelyabinsk served as proof that the danger posed by Near-Earth Objects (NEOs) is not science fiction. As noted, the Chelyabinsk meteor was fairly small, about 65 feet in diameter. There are much larger objects in our cosmic neighborhood, and there are still tens of thousands of uncharted NEOs of significant size. To underscore the point, nature had an asteroid conduct an uncomfortably close pass on the same day that the meteor struck Chelyabinsk.

H.R. 1022, the George E. Brown, Jr. Near-Earth Object Survey Act has the following mandate: “To provide for a Near-Earth Object Survey program to detect, track, catalogue, and characterize certain near-earth asteroids and comets…”

It calls for NASA to detect 90 percent of NEOs with diameters over 140 meters. But significantly, there is no plan of action in case a large object is detected on a collision course with Earth. There are plenty of scientifically sound suggestions, but there is no solid plan, no budget, no spacecraft.

International Space Station orbit Earth ISS spacecraft NASA photo posted on SpaceFlight Insider

It has been widely stated we are more capable to travel to Mars today – than we were to travel to the Moon in the 1960s. However, this overlooks one key requirement – will. Photo Credit: NASA

If a catastrophic event were to occur on Earth—whether the devastating impact of a large asteroid or the spread of a pandemic disease or a sudden global nuclear war or a widespread EMP effect from a solar storm or the slow and inexorable march of climate change—space is the key to human survival. If something were to happen to the Earth, humanity could be saved by the presence of a base on the Moon or a colony on Mars.

We used to be in the habit of keeping printouts of important information. Now we back up our computers online. Why shouldn’t we have a backup of the most precious thing to us of all: our species?

Those who push the argument that we should not have a space program, that we should invest our energies on Earth-based, eternal issues that humanity has dealt with since we came down from the trees are ignoring that.

History has lessons for those willing to listen. The next time someone states that we should invest its time, energy and resources here on Earth and get to space “later” – ask them if they know what caused the spread of the Bubonic Plague – and what could have been done to help prevent it. It is very likely that they won’t have a clue – just like their assessment of the importance of space exploration.

 

The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author and do not, necessarily reflect those of  SpaceFlight Insider

Welcome to SpaceFlight Insider! Be sure to follow us on Facebook: SpaceFlight Insider as well as on Twitter at: @SpaceflightIns

 

 

 

 

 

Tagged:

Collin R. Skocik has been captivated by space flight since the maiden flight of space shuttle Columbia in April of 1981. He frequently attends events hosted by the Astronaut Scholarship Foundation, and has met many astronauts in his experiences at Kennedy Space Center. He is a prolific author of science fiction as well as science and space-related articles. In addition to the Voyage Into the Unknown series, he has also written the short story collection The Future Lives!, the science fiction novel Dreams of the Stars, and the disaster novel The Sunburst Fire. His first print sale was Asteroid Eternia in Encounters magazine. When he is not writing, he provides closed-captioning for the hearing impaired. He lives in Atlantic Beach, Florida.

Reader Comments

I would make the simple argument that is BECAUSE we shifted our national priorities to helping to solve the problems of the earth, that we have the problems that we have today.

Another question to ask is this: How much money is spent on health and social related problems surrounding alcohol and tobacco? And yet as a society, we embrace these vices and accept the costs.

P.S. The earth already has well over 7 billion people on it.

Very good article !! Most people don’t have a clue as to what the benefit’s society gains from spaceflight, and this article does a very good job of explaining the ignorant mind set of many.
And the ignorant are; Obama, Bolden, Bill Nelson and many others who are in power right now. Hopefully this will change soon and we’ll stop paying Russia to keep their people employed and put Americans back to work therefore boosting our own economy. But that probably won’t be for a couple of more years.

Well said! One of the projects I have the privilege of working on with the ISS astronauts is called CyMISS (Cyclone intensity Measurements from the ISS). The objective of this project is to verify a new method of more accurately gauging the strength of hurricanes and other type of tropical cyclones especially when such storms are far out at sea. This is but one tiny example of how space-related research helps to solve problems right here on the Earth!

http://www.drewexmachina.com/2014/11/10/iss-tropical-cyclone-experiment/

Collin, with the upcoming launch of EFT-1 there will no doubt be a surge of “Earth first” arguments in the media. Would it be possible for you to transmit a copy of this exceptionally well-written, greatly needed article to every major news outlet in America? If that is not feasible, would it be possible for you to give your permission for Spaceflight Insider readers to, with proper credit given of course, forward this powerful, insightful, article to local news outlets? We of the space community are all behind you Collin, and we support you wholeheartedly, but your excellent work must not be mere “preaching to the choir”. For the benefit (and possibly the very survival) of space exploration, this is actually something we can do that will bring the truth, the facts to John Q. Public and possibly even make a difference.

This is exactly right, that the amount we spend putting humans in space won’t solve important earthly problems. But let’s look at it in the other direction. What problems does the $5-6B/yr that NASA spends on human space flight actually solve? Moving humanity into the cosmos? Not even close. You could double the budget of NASA and not put a genomically significant colony on Mars. That is, a handful of humans on Mars ain’t gonna save the species.

So before we get too huffy about what terrestrial problems the human spaceflight budget won’t solve, let’s be honest about what problems it does solve. Let’s also have an honest discussion about exactly what human spaceflight is FOR. We can all flail our arms about saving the species but, you know, Congress has never established that as a goal. Nope. Not a word. You’d think the authorizers and appropriators of NASA would have drawn a line in the sand and said HERE is what we’re trying to accomplish. Right now, what we’re trying to accomplish is to put people on Mars. But, um, why? Congress isn’t telling us. There isn’t, to our knowledge, any unobtainium there to be had. There aren’t, to our knowledge, any species there to convert to democracy. And, I’ll say it again. It is well established that a genetically sustainable population numbers several thousand. So how much are we going to spend to put several thousand people on another world? That amount is going to very significantly impact current problems on the Earth.

But we’ll blather on about the importance of a miniscule human space flight budget. A budget that pretty much just buys stunts. Anyone, with even the most basic understandings of human history knows that this argument is based off of emotion – and will only serve to injure humanity’s chances for long-term survival.

You claim that objections to space flight are strictly emotions. But your comments are also based on emotion and not fact. You preach to the hard core manned space flight proponents. A lot of the objectors you disparage are not against space flight or NASA. They, like me, think the SLS is not a wise investment. We could get beyond LEO sooner with wiser investments of money. Your blaming Obama is strictly an emotional and ideological outburst.

Thanks for the comment, Techman. This article is a response specifically to those who say we shouldn’t go into space until we’ve solved our problems on Earth. It is not directed toward well-informed arguments about how best to proceed in space.

The comment about President Obama was not ideological, it refers to his cancellation of the Constellation Program, and lack of space leadership since then. It was not an indictment of President Obama himself or of any of his other policies, some of which I agree with and some of which I don’t.

I think some captivating CG animations showing overpopulation as quickly expanding red blankets emanating from the major cities, and spreading across the globe much like the Hollywood infectious disease vector maps we are so familiar with- along with prophetical segments detailing the highlights of world war 3 as the planet fights over the last remaining pockets of crude oil and natural gas and farmable land, as millions die of famine and disease resulting from poor nutrition and close quarter living… now include those with the hard data about exactly how long we have left, as PSAs during the commercial breaks of dancing with the stars, and that would do far more to motivate us than anything else we could do.

End them with a black screen displaying the words “Scientists and engineers are needed to save humanity- athletes and rappers are needed to entertain the dying who get left behind. What do you want to be?”

These are the same foolish people who go to third-world countries as missionaries and teach them that birth control is a sin, thereby condemning the world to generations of more overpopulated, uneducated masses further polluting the earth with CO2 and depleting our natural resources, while giving nothing back to our collective knowledge or technological advancement. You often can’t even argue with these kind of people, because no mater how logical or true your position is, they will always cite god or some other fictional, emotional or intangible source as their counter argument.

⚠ Commenting Rules

Post Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *