Space exploration, while vastly popular in the 1960s, has begun to lose such strong support. There are questions of its value as well as questions regarding the way in which it is being operated. On top of this, President Obama has recently suggested a change in direction for America’s space exploration which will massively alter the way in which NASA functions.
A few years ago, NASA released a document describing the goals of space exploration.
The document took the position that space exploration is vital to America’s future. Its argues that exploring the cosmos inspires children to become new generations of scientist, creates a potential for technological breakthroughs that could benefit the economy as well as national security, and promotes democracy as a government system capable of achieving great things. In addition to this, the article states that "because the very purpose of exploratory voyages and research is to understand the unknown, exact benefits defy calculation." This shows that beyond the potential of inspiring prospective scientist, beyond the possibility of developing technologies that could be useful for private industry and national security, and beyond evoking national pride, NASA believes space exploration has great, unknown benefits that will only be discovered if America continues to reach for the stars. The fact that space holds so many mysteries is part of what draws the human mind to ponder about it and part of what allows space exploration to be so easily justifiable. Even opponents to NASA cannot refute the possibility of such grand, unrevealed rewards. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
There are, however, opponents to NASA who desire not the end of space exploration, but the relocation of it. Those of this opinion believe that the heavens should be studied by private businesses and organizations streamlined by competition. One notable person of this opinion is Steve Bonta, the Director of Indianapolis operations of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the largest government finance and accounting operation in America. Not only does he believe that private enterprise could carry out space exploration more efficiently, he feels that government should not have financed this project to begin with. He wrote in the San Diego Greenhaven Press, “the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to use taxpayer dollars to promote science for its own sake.” In other words, as space exploration doesn’t directly affect national security, the government has no business spending inordinate amounts of tax payers’ money on it. This view neglects the indirect benefits of space exploration as described in the previous paragraph as well as the possibility of rewards beyond current comprehension. At the same time, this argument makes a good point. The benefits are not direct or definite, so it is hard to justify their cost. Only in by being truly profitable, as it would have to be in the private sector, can space exploration be absolutely defensible. (Bonta)
Recently, there has been a proposed hybrid of these ideas. Last week, President Obama presented a plan in which private enterprise would provide the ships for near Earth space exploration. The goal is that eventually NASA will simply be able to buy tickets to the moon, orbit, or to the international space station from privately run businesses. Their Ships have not been built yet, so there will be a period of time where NASA will rely on Russia to ferry Astronauts to and from space. While private enterprise would take over manned near space flight, NASA would be free to devote all of its efforts to developing new technologies that will hopefully bring human kind further into the reaches of space. The plan would now, instead of focusing on another landing on the moon, devote its efforts to developing new launch and space travel technologies; there is no written goal of sending man or machine to other planets. Florida Democrat Representative Suzanne M. Kosmas complained that the plan had a "lack of direction," but this may be more of a positive attribute than negative. Without set goals, the NASA is free to determine the most beneficial goals to set and natural phenomenon to study. This plan also demonstrates understanding that the benefits of space exploration have yet to be fully revealed and that such rewards may not necessarily be found in the romantic adventures of manned missions to the moon and beyond. (Chang)
The space exploration of today is indeed very different than that of the Space Race. Questions are being raised about the necessity of government involvement in this extravagant field of science, and changes are being made to spread its development beyond the bounds of government control. Space exploration has taken a new direction and has an uncertain future due to both the changes being made and its unknown value to society. With some calling Obama’s plan for NASA the death of space exploration and others claiming it will lead to the revitalization of the field, these are very unsettling times for believers of its value.
A few years ago, NASA released a document describing the goals of space exploration.
The document took the position that space exploration is vital to America’s future. Its argues that exploring the cosmos inspires children to become new generations of scientist, creates a potential for technological breakthroughs that could benefit the economy as well as national security, and promotes democracy as a government system capable of achieving great things. In addition to this, the article states that "because the very purpose of exploratory voyages and research is to understand the unknown, exact benefits defy calculation." This shows that beyond the potential of inspiring prospective scientist, beyond the possibility of developing technologies that could be useful for private industry and national security, and beyond evoking national pride, NASA believes space exploration has great, unknown benefits that will only be discovered if America continues to reach for the stars. The fact that space holds so many mysteries is part of what draws the human mind to ponder about it and part of what allows space exploration to be so easily justifiable. Even opponents to NASA cannot refute the possibility of such grand, unrevealed rewards. (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
There are, however, opponents to NASA who desire not the end of space exploration, but the relocation of it. Those of this opinion believe that the heavens should be studied by private businesses and organizations streamlined by competition. One notable person of this opinion is Steve Bonta, the Director of Indianapolis operations of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the largest government finance and accounting operation in America. Not only does he believe that private enterprise could carry out space exploration more efficiently, he feels that government should not have financed this project to begin with. He wrote in the San Diego Greenhaven Press, “the federal government is not constitutionally authorized to use taxpayer dollars to promote science for its own sake.” In other words, as space exploration doesn’t directly affect national security, the government has no business spending inordinate amounts of tax payers’ money on it. This view neglects the indirect benefits of space exploration as described in the previous paragraph as well as the possibility of rewards beyond current comprehension. At the same time, this argument makes a good point. The benefits are not direct or definite, so it is hard to justify their cost. Only in by being truly profitable, as it would have to be in the private sector, can space exploration be absolutely defensible. (Bonta)
Recently, there has been a proposed hybrid of these ideas. Last week, President Obama presented a plan in which private enterprise would provide the ships for near Earth space exploration. The goal is that eventually NASA will simply be able to buy tickets to the moon, orbit, or to the international space station from privately run businesses. Their Ships have not been built yet, so there will be a period of time where NASA will rely on Russia to ferry Astronauts to and from space. While private enterprise would take over manned near space flight, NASA would be free to devote all of its efforts to developing new technologies that will hopefully bring human kind further into the reaches of space. The plan would now, instead of focusing on another landing on the moon, devote its efforts to developing new launch and space travel technologies; there is no written goal of sending man or machine to other planets. Florida Democrat Representative Suzanne M. Kosmas complained that the plan had a "lack of direction," but this may be more of a positive attribute than negative. Without set goals, the NASA is free to determine the most beneficial goals to set and natural phenomenon to study. This plan also demonstrates understanding that the benefits of space exploration have yet to be fully revealed and that such rewards may not necessarily be found in the romantic adventures of manned missions to the moon and beyond. (Chang)
The space exploration of today is indeed very different than that of the Space Race. Questions are being raised about the necessity of government involvement in this extravagant field of science, and changes are being made to spread its development beyond the bounds of government control. Space exploration has taken a new direction and has an uncertain future due to both the changes being made and its unknown value to society. With some calling Obama’s plan for NASA the death of space exploration and others claiming it will lead to the revitalization of the field, these are very unsettling times for believers of its value.
1 comment:
Great quote in the first section. I wonder about Bonta's argument however. What would be the counterpoints to it? Are there places in the Constitution where it is defensible to spend taxpayers' money on space exploration (I can think of a few). I'm also a bit confused by President Obama's plan. If the government is going to fund it anyway, then why choose to fund private exploration rather than public? Shouldn't government funds be used for the public good rather than private gain?
Post a Comment