Space Exploration

Here's a picture of my family at the Huntington, Alabama space center.

I enjoyed the visit. The center displays all aspects of space exploration. But one thing was missing from this humongous NASA public-relations effort: Any mention of what space exploration has benefited us.

This huge complex offered rides, talked about possibilities (life on the moon, like that dream is at all novel), and twittered about all the technology involved. But silently missing from anything I saw: What has space exploration done for us?

NASA, it turns out, has developed a webpage that talks about the benefits of the space program. It's quite a list, but there's a problem with it: None of the items required space in order to be developed. Cordless drills? Football helmet padding? Better crop dusting technology? Cosmetics at Estee Lauder? None of that stuff requires space exploration to develop. Moreover, I think it's fair to ask: We spent billions (trillions?) developing better make-up and sporting equipment?

Granted, the space program provided satellite technology. I assume space technology is required to put satellites into orbit. Though NASA's own site admits that private companies can do it themselves, it's doubtful that was the case back in 1962 when NASA launched Telstar I. I simply don't know. It's interesting, though, that the NASA site is either modest or implies that NASA merely led the way in satellite technology--not that such technology wouldn't have been possible without space exploration.

And in any event, the Telstar I was launched over 40 years ago. If that's the only benefit of space exploration, why are we budgeting $1.5 billion annually to NASA?

I checked out Wikipedia's space exploration entry. I figured it would be a good source, since presumably pro- and anti-space exploration people are editing it every day. Here's what it says:

Other critics, such as the late physicist and Nobel-prize winner Richard Feynman, have contended that space travel has never achieved any major scientific breakthroughs. However, others counter-argued that there have been many indirect scientific achievements: development of the modern computer, lasers, etc.

Some critics contend that in light of the huge distances in space, human space travel will never be able to do more than achieve an earth orbit or at best visit our closest neighbours in the solar system, and even this will consume large amounts of money and will require complex spacecraft that will accommodate only a handful of people. Supporters of human space travel state that this is irrelevant, because its real value lies in providing a focal point for national prestige and patriotism. They suggest that this was the reason why the Clinton administration cooperated closely with Russia on the International Space Station: it gave Russia something to take pride in, and as such became a stabilizing factor in post-communist Russia. From this point of view, the ISS was a justifiable cash outlay.

Some people also have moral objections to the huge costs of space travel, and point out that even a fraction of the space travel budget would make a huge difference in fighting disease and hunger in the world. However, space exploration itself receives a very small percentage of total government spending (nearly always under 0.5%).

Overall, the public remains largely supportive of both manned and unmanned space exploration. According to an Associated Press Poll conducted in July 2003, 71% of US citizens agreed with the statement that the space program is "a good investment," compared to 21% who did not (Pollingreport.com).