Do we still need a space program?

[Earniel]

If you happen to find it (though I'm not saying you should search for it right away now), do post it.

[Khamûl]

Ok, I'll look for it and post it later today.

[Khamûl]

I found it, but be warned -- it's rather lengthy.


Does America Still Need a Space Program?

As long as mankind has looked up at the night sky, we have dreamed of being among the stars. Leonardo da Vinci and other Renaissance inventors envisioned human flight, a necessary step in the journey to outer space. Jules Verne, one of the leading science fiction writers of the 19th century, wrote about space flight over 100 years before it happened.

In 1903, Wilbur and Orville Wright made the dream come one step closer to reality when they invented the first working airplane. This is probably the most important invention in our quest to venture into space. Space travel finally moved out of the realm of science fiction when Russian cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space in 1961. In 1962, John Glenn became the first American in space onboard his spacecraft Friendship 7 (Chaikin).

Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969. That was a landmark in our conquest of space because it was truly “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind”. After the space race was over and the Apollo program came to an end, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began work on a new space vehicle called the space shuttle.

In 1981, the space shuttle Columbia was launched for the first time. The American space program faced a setback in January 1986 after the loss of the Challenger moments after take-off. After almost a year, shuttle launches resumed. Seventeen years later, tragedy struck again when the space shuttle Columbia broke up on re-entry over Texas.

Many people probably have the opinion that the space program has served its purpose and has no use anymore. But even though the space program has faced setbacks and suffered losses, it is beneficial and should continue. The space program is important to our nation and our daily lives in ways most people never imagine.

One of the ways the space program affects people is the matter of national defense. Space is vital to the defense of the United States. If another country were to put weapons in space, defense of the United States would become very tough. Space is viewed as the “ultimate high ground” in the next generation of warfare. Satellites would be difficult to attack, except through jamming (Hays 34-49).

Satellites are an important part of defense. Of the 1,000 active satellites currently in orbit, about 1 out of every 8 belongs of the U.S. Military. President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld are working to update President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, or “Star Wars” Defense Program. This program would help protect the U.S. from enemy satellites and intercontinental ballistic missiles. Using lasers, computers could lock on to an incoming missile and fire the laser to explode the missile using its own fuel. The government hopes to have a system similar to this operational by 2010 (Hitt 30+). In a variation of the space defense program, heat from enemy missiles would be spotted by satellites. A U.S. interceptor missile would be launched to collide with the enemy missile and knock it out of the sky (Richter A1+).

Satellites are also useful in weather prediction. Weather experts use the motion of clouds and cloud height to calculate height and wind speed. Current satellite data can only provide an estimation of height and temperature. In 1999, NASA launched a Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) which provides more precise data through the use of 9 different cameras. Research shows that the new data is accurate to within 3 meters per second and 400 meters in altitude. Improved data collection over the Pacific Ocean increases severe weather warning time on the West Coast. Clouds are the least understood factor of global warming and the greenhouse effect, so these satellites should help with that aspect as well (Welsh).

Using data from satellites and weather stations all around the world, scientists have discovered that the air temperature has warmed globally by an average of 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century. U.S. Defense Meteorological satellites measure nighttime lights all over the earth. Rural areas are used in the study because they are less contaminated by the effects of concrete and pavement found in urban areas. This is part of NASA’s Earth Sciences Enterprise, which is devoted to helping us understand natural and human-caused changes to Earth’s climate and environment (“Satellites Shed Light…”).

NASA’s Aqua Satellite is designed to study global precipitation, evaporation, and the water cycle. This will help scientists decide if the water cycle is changing because of global climate change. Part of the satellite, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory’s Atmospheric Infrared Sounder, will help scientists improve weather prediction and observe changes in climate by monitoring the atmosphere (“Aqua Launched…”).

[Khamûl]

NASA also has many other satellites to help improve weather research and prediction. The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) can help predict the effects of El Nino and La Nina, which saved the US billions of dollars in 1999. This satellite also helps show how energy is distributed within a hurricane, which helps with storm path predictions. The extra warning time provided by this satellite could save thousands of lives in the event of a hurricane.

The Landsat 7 satellite helps scientists understand the effects of hurricanes, floods, fires, and drought based on Earth-mapping data. Another satellite, QuickSCAT, measures wind currents on the ocean and helps in NOAA marine forecasts (“NASA Helps Improve…”). As you can see, satellites are playing an increasingly important role in weather forecasting.

NASA will also use satellites to fly over the World Trade Center area to pinpoint possible buried phone lines, gas lines, pipes and other infrastructure. This will be used to minimize digging in the September 11 cleanup (“NASA to Provide…”).

Satellites are also used by the military for reconnaissance purposes. In World War II, it took an average of 5,000 bombs to take out a target. In Vietnam, it took 500 bombs to do the same job. In the first Gulf War, satellite guided bombs dropped that number to ten. New satellite technology distinguishes “light signatures” to detect tanks and artillery even under camouflage or cover (Hitt 30+). Other military satellites are playing an important part in our current war with Iraq. They are used to identify possible chemical weapon production sites and to monitor Iraqi troop movement.

The space program is worthwhile, and also needs better funding if it is to continue. NASA spent an estimated $125 million on the Mars Climate Orbiter and about the same amount on the Mars Polar Lander, both of which failed. Part of the Martian Explorer program failure was due to cost cutting. To keep costs down, NASA engineers did not equip the Lander with instruments to detect the status of its descent. Some experts believe that a malfunction in the onboard landing system caused rocket boosters to fire and burn out too early, causing the Lander to slam into Mars’s surface at over 50 miles an hour, causing significant damage (Chaikin).

NASA’s budget hasn’t changed much since the early 1990s. If you corrected NASA’s budget at the height of the Apollo program for inflation, the current budget is less than half of that (Petit 58). The space program is also more important now because of the many technological advances being made. During the 1960s, we were involved in the Cold War and wanted to push boundaries and control frontiers. Now that we have achieved that goal, the space program still needs funds to continue.

This lack of funding is also affecting NASA’s employees. NASA is being forced to cut employees and hire more outside contractors due to the lack of funding. In the fall of 2002, NASA put plans for a next generation space shuttle on hold due to budget problems. They planned to keep the current space shuttles flying until 2015, but the recent Columbia disaster might change that (Adler 36).

Another matter is the International Space Station. Some estimate that the U.S. has spent over $30 billion in the past 20 years on the International Space Station. The U.S. would have spent another $8.3 billion on the project by 2006. $2.1 billion of NASA’s $14.7 billion budget for 2001 is for the International Space Station. Due to U.S. cost cuts, the size of the station has also been cut (Petit 58). This suggests that the U.S. is the main supporter of the project. If this is truly an international project, the size of the project should not be affected because NASA is taking a cost cut.

The space program can also make everyday life on Earth better. Space technology is increasingly being used in the fields of medicine and industry. Doctors at the Center for Commercial Applications of Combustion in Space (CCACS) are developing a ceramic replacement for current artificial bones. These new ceramics have pores in them which allow for better blood flow and a way for real bone to attach to the implants. Tests show that ceramics made in low gravity have larger and better-connected pores than ceramics made on Earth. Tests on the International Space Station might provide a way to duplicate the process on Earth (Price).

The heart is one of the main parts of the body that benefits from NASA research and technology. NASA technology used to communicate with satellites lets doctors fine-tune pacemakers from outside the body. Additionally, the same technology NASA uses to study airflow over aircraft can also be used to study how blood flows in arteries and the heart, leading to better artificial hearts and heart valves (Dunbar).

[Khamûl]

Dr. Michael DeBakey is working with NASA to develop a new artificial heart using shuttle fuel pump technology. The new heart, which is being tested in Europe, is two inches long, one inch in diameter, and weighs less than four ounces (“Spin-offs…”).

The heart is not the only part of the body to receive benefits from NASA technology. A rotating cell-culture device used by the space shuttle crew allows scientists to grow cells in three dimensions. It may soon offer another choice to people who need an organ transplant. Technology used to provide special light to grow plants on the space station is being used in photodynamic therapy to kill brain tumors in children. People who have had head injuries, stroke, or nervous disorders are being treated with technology used to measure astronauts’ equilibrium. A lightweight and extremely tough foam used to protect the external fuel tank of the shuttle is now being used in artificial limbs (“Spin-offs…”).

Hospitals and doctors are also benefiting from diagnostic technology developed by NASA. Devices used to detect infrared energy and the birth of stars is being used in ear thermometers. Centrifugation (rapidly spinning substances in a centrifuge in order to separate it into its components) is not practical in space, so NASA has developed blood analysis methods that don’t involve centrifugation. Other NASA blood diagnostic technology allows doctors and hospitals to analyze blood in 30 seconds. Using old technology, the same process would take around 20 minutes (“Spin-offs…”).

Along with advances in the field of medicine, industrial technology is getting a boost from NASA research. NASA technology designed to measure the Earth’s atmosphere will soon be helping reduce automotive emissions by 30% and will also reduce the cost of catalytic converters. Its low temperature oxidation allows it to begin filtering toxic gases almost immediately in cold weather. Conventional catalytic converters take time to warm up. NASA developed this technology to work in the freezing vacuum of space. The new catalytic converter is more efficient, less expensive, and doesn’t require a warm-up time. NASA hopes to have a product on the market by December 2003 (“NASA Know-How…”).

Another new product is now being used in the automotive industry. Magnetorheological fluids, or MR fluids, are being used in the shock absorbers of Cadillac vehicles. MR fluids are liquids that change shape or harden in response to a magnetic field. Larger but similar devices have been used at Japan’s National Museum of Emerging Science and China’s Dong Ting Lake Bridge to help protect against wind gusts and earthquakes. InSPACE, an experiment on the International Space Station, is designed to study MR fluids in zero gravity. Astronauts are an important part of the study, trying to understand the physics of MR fluids. Scientists are also looking at using MR fluids in seat belts and airbags in cars. An MR fluid washing machine is also being developed by the Lord Corporation of North Carolina. Magnetic devices will cut noise, vibration, and energy (“Amazing Magnetic Fluids”).

Many other businesses and organizations are taking advantage of NASA-developed technology. Tracking technology used to follow the space shuttle is being used to recover stolen vehicles and to track individual vehicles from a fleet, such as taxis (“Spin-offs…”). NASA has developed a voice-activated, hands-free computer for space station astronauts. In the future, air traffic controllers could use the same technology (Young 19).

Police are using space shuttle launch video analysis equipment to clean up surveillance and crime videos. NASA observers monitor the space shuttle’s rocket boosters using an infrared camera that is now being used by firefighters to monitor wildfire hotspots. The Ford automotive company is adapting a system used to detect gas leaks in the shuttle’s propulsion system. This device will be used in the production of a natural gas-powered car.

Heat tiles from the space shuttle are used by jewelers as a safe base for soldering. Technology used to separate parts of the space shuttle is being used by rescue crews to extract people from wrecked cars. It is less cumbersome and 70% cheaper than devices currently in use. A lubricant used on the machine that transports the shuttle to the launch pad is being used commercially to prevent rust, clean and lubricate guns and fishing reels, and to reduce friction in engines (“Spin-offs…”).

[Khamûl]

Invisible braces are a byproduct of research into materials tough enough to withstand space travel. Bar coding was developed to help NASA keep up with millions of spacecraft parts. Cordless tools were invented for Apollo astronauts to use on the moon. Joysticks, used by video gamers and people with disabilities, were developed for the Apollo lunar rover. Smoke detectors were invented to detect toxic vapors aboard the space station Skylab. Fireproof fabric used by firefighters was developed for use in space suits (“Everyday Kind…”).

Adapted NASA technology is not limited to medicine or industrial uses. It also touches our everyday lives in ways you might not imagine. NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab developed a machine that tests satellites to make sure they don’t wobble in orbit. This technology has been applied to bowling balls by Ebonite, a bowling ball manufacturer (Young 19). The toy company Hasbro, Inc. has used NASA wind tunnels and aerodynamics to increase flight distance and stunt capabilities in their toy gliders (Spin-offs…). NASA also developed Tang, a popular powdered orange drink.

While the space program is changing life on Earth, we are always moving toward expanding our boundaries and the limits of our understanding. We are still decades, maybe even centuries away from colonizing other planets or galaxies. But while that ultimate goal is still a dream, the space program should continue in order to improve life on Earth as we reach toward that goal.

Works Cited

Adler, Jerry. “Still Reaching for the Stars” Newsweek 10 Feb. 2003: 36.
“Amazing Magnetic Fluids” Science @ NASA 23 Aug. 2002
“Aqua Launched to Study Earth’s Water Cycle” Jet Propulsion Lab News Release 4 May 2002
Chaikin, Andrew. “Space Exploration” Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002. CD-ROM. 2002 Edition
Coledan, Stefano. “Astronauts in Danger” Popular Mechanics Dec. 2000: 70
Dunbar, Brian. “Space Technology Used to Detect and Treat Heart Disease” NASA Cardiac Research News Release 20 Feb. 1998
“Everyday Kind of Impact” Palm Beach Post 20 July 2002: 1D+
Hays, Lt. Col. Peter and Dr. Karl Mueller. “Going Boldly – Where?” Aerospace Power Journal Spring 2001: 34-49
Hitt, Jack. “Battlefield: Space” New York Times Magazine 5 Aug. 2001: 30+
“NASA Helps Improve Weather Prediction” Aerospace Technology Innovation May/June 2000: 4-6
“NASA Know-How Will Reduce Automotive Emissions” NASA Press Release 11 Dec. 2002
“NASA to Provide Sharper Underground View of World Trade Center Area” Jet Propulsion Laboratory News Release 29 Aug. 2002
Petit, Charles W. “2001: Not Much of an Odyssey” US News and World Report 10 Dec. 2001: 58.
Price, Steve and Tony Phillips. “Better Bone Implants” Science @ NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center 30 Oct. 2002
Richter, Paul. “Deployment of US Missile Shield Looks Ever Likelier” Los Angeles Times 21 Mar. 1999: A1+
Robinson, Kim Stanley. “Why We Should Go to Mars” Newsweek 6 Dec. 1999: 62.
“Satellites Shed Light on a Warmer World” Press Release 5 Nov. 2001
“Spin-offs from the Space Shuttle Program” Marshall Space Flight Center Fact Sheets March 2000
Welsh, Robin. “Tracking Clouds” Reprinted from Earth Observatory 9 Oct. 2002
Young, Kelly. “NASA Technology Contributes to Better Sporting Goods” Florida Today 19 Aug. 2002

[The Gaffer]

Nice essay. Well done sir or madam.

What do you think are the main arguments against a space programme?

[Earniel]

Thanks for posting it, Khamûl. It's definitly very possitive for the space programm.

[Khamûl]

Thank you.

I'm not really sure what the main arguments are against the space program, since I'm obviously for it.

[Insidious Rex]

woo hoo! Bush wants to go to the moon. errr... I mean send americans to the moon. Thoughts everyone? Bad timing? Long overdue? Waste of money? Simply an attempt to boost his presidential rating for election purposes? If so does it really matter?

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
woo hoo! Bush wants to go to the moon. errr... I mean send americans to the moon. Thoughts everyone? Bad timing? Long overdue? Waste of money? Simply an attempt to boost his presidential rating for election purposes? If so does it really matter?

I don't think it is something just to get elected - but I think NASA has been running without a clear big pupose for a while. I think it would be good if we worked on huge plans on space. if we don't do it now - someone else will and we'll be playing catch-up again. Space and the Moon is too important for the future of mankind for the US to just sit on the sidelines.

[cassiopeia]

I heard that NASA were going to send people to Mars in the next fifteen years and build a base on the Moon. It would be very exciting if this happens but it's been over thirty years since we have stepped foot on the Moon, so I don't have too much hope. I think, as shown in the 60's, NASA gets things done quicker and better when they are set a challenge, like JFK did. Our future is in space, and we only have another 5 billion years till the sun goes nova.

[The Gaffer]

My views are that manned space flight is a massive waste of money, and that twenty times as much can be accomplished by unmanned programmes.

There's simply no way we are anywhere near being able to solve the problems posed by getting our fragile butts off the ground in significant numbers.

There was an interesting documentary a few years back about the Reagan project for a permanently manned space station. NASA were given $10bn to solve the water problem: how do you get the 5 kilos per day (or whatever) of water each human needs to drink into orbit? The only thing they succeeded in was spending the $10bn.

The Russians solved it, by making the cosmonauts drink their own waste.

It's a shame that NASA is being forced to accommodate TV ratings and other agendas.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
There's simply no way we are anywhere near being able to solve the problems posed by getting our fragile butts off the ground in significant numbers.

Without steps andf goals we will never get there. So what - just throw up our hands and say it's impossible? I don't beleive it was felt we had the technology to get to the moon in the first place and that was over 30 years ago.

The Russians solved it, by making the cosmonauts drink their own waste.

What do you thinkn you basically do when you turn on the tap water? A lot of that is waste treated water. What's the difference?

It's a shame that NASA is being forced to accommodate TV ratings and other agendas.

I wouldn't expect anything less from you other then the newest conspiracy theory and negative attitude. There is more to NASA than just straight science.

[Valandil]

Originally posted by Khamûl
In 1962, John Glenn became the first American in space onboard his spacecraft Friendship 7 (Chaikin).

Actually, Alan Shepherd was the first American to go into space. John Glenn was the first American to orbit the earth.

Otherwise, a VERY nice post... including the parts about various inventions from the space program which are now a part of everyday use. But I STILL think Sunny Delight IS Tang!!!

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I wouldn't expect anything less from you other then the newest conspiracy theory and negative attitude. There is more to NASA than just straight science.

YAWN! You are SO predictable.

Meantime, anyone normal care to discuss the cost-benefit ratio of unmanned programmes versus manned programmes?

[Valandil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Meantime, anyone normal care to discuss the cost-benefit ratio of unmanned programmes versus manned programmes?

Very good point. But when it comes right down to it, I'm sure some good part of the space program is "dream fulfillment" - sort of "climbing the mountain because it's there"

And I have to ask myself... my three sons, between 1 and 5... how would I feel about one of them possibly being on a first manned mission to Mars in 40 or 45 years? Thrilled on the one hand... anxious and scared as all get-out on the other!!! It's just SO much farther away than earth orbit or our moon. (yet infinitesmally close by comparison by galactic or intergalactic standards) So much could potentially go wrong... and THEN what happens...

(EDIT: btw - I'm pretty sure the 'anxious and scared' part would win out on my end. Fortunately, there's probably about a one in 100 million chance I'll have to worry about it.)

[The Gaffer]

Originally posted by Valandil
Very good point. But when it comes right down to it, I'm sure some good part of the space program is "dream fulfillment" - sort of "climbing the mountain because it's there"

I appreciate that, and understand that it is one of the two arguments in favour (the other being that we have to start the basic research to be able to reach the practical goal). Maybe we could think about it.

To me, these sorts of dreams seem to reflect the values that we hold. Perhaps there is some "human nature" imperative that makes us want to explore beyond experience, but there may be other ways in which to direct that.

In geographical terms, there's the ocean floor, for example. Or what if our ambitions were directed towards other spheres other than the spatial?

The key lesson of the Apollo mission was that it wasn't worth it (economically). We got to the moon and there was nothing there. It was a real wake-up call for the technological determinists. Didn't we (up to the early 70s) think we'd be going to the moon on holiday by the year 2000?

Let's not make the same mistake with an even more challenging technological undertaking.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
YAWN! You are SO predictable.

Meantime, anyone normal care to discuss the cost-benefit ratio of unmanned programmes versus manned programmes?

Sorry that you have to have such a condescending attitude and sorry you don't like my response. I am sure you will get over it. But the fact remains that NASA's sole purpose is NOT purely for scientific understanding of the solar system like you seem to think.

It is important for NASA to be looking at sending man into space, to be the leader at the colonization of space. That is where we will be in the future. Would it be cheaper to send unmanned observers? Yeah it would - that is a no brainer. Should NASA stop sending man into space? - absolutely NOT. Europe did not loose thousands of sailors and ships for the sake of understanding new plants and animals in the Western Hemisphere. They put the effort in so they could try to find a more direct route to Asia for trade purposes.

By the way - your arrogant comment was this...

It's a shame that NASA is being forced to accommodate TV ratings and other agendas.

Which is VERY typical for you. You weren't talking about cost benefits or anything here - so don't get that superior attitude like I wasn't willing to talk about the cost benefits of manned space versus unmanned space research. You indicate with this statement that the only reason you think NASA partakes in manned space travel is for tv ratings. That isn't so. Of course, part of it is, because AMERICANS - the tax payers supporting the program - want to see where the money is going and would like to see progress toward MANNED colonization and a return on investment. This is the most direct thing to see and it makes us feel proud. But also - it is the goal of understanding how humans react in space, how to BUILD in space, and all the other things that will be required to colonize space. 30 years is way too long not to be on the moon. It is about time NASA got it's act together and started working toward the grand vision of colonization again. Research on understanding the universe is great, but it doesn't have a huge impact on everyday life and it doesn't have a huge return on investment.

You are the one who could stop with the constant negative attitude. NASA isn't even YOUR program - so you really don't have to care if it's a waste of money or not. As with any government agency there is a lot of waste, but the process of sending man into space isn't one of them.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
In geographical terms, there's the ocean floor, for example. Or what if our ambitions were directed towards other spheres other than the spatial?

There are marine research institutes that study the ocean. This thread is about NASA - NATIONAL Aeronautic SPACE Adminstration.

The key lesson of the Apollo mission was that it wasn't worth it (economically). We got to the moon and there was nothing there. It was a real wake-up call for the technological determinists.

Just because nothing was there - doesn't mean it wasn't worth it. If the program had continued and had built on the technogoly - we could be colonizing the moon, or possibly getting rare ore from the moon. We only tapped the surface of the mooon and only a SMALL part at that. We have no idea if it has things that will be very beneficial to the world.

Didn't we (up to the early 70s) think we'd be going to the moon on holiday by the year 2000?

Well - NASA lost site and direction after going to the moon. The Space Shuttle was supposed to be the first of a long line of reusable vehicles. First the design was reduced and then we have been using the same 60's technology they were initially design with. The Space Station is an important step, but again that was cut back. NASA needs to start looking at it's goals and I personally do NOT want them to be solely for scientific research. I want the goal of NASA to be for the ultimate colonization of space.

Let's not make the same mistake with an even more challenging technological undertaking.

I must say - good thing you weren't around during the 1400-1600 hundreds.