Physics 1040 Class Essay

Investing in Space Produces Results

Space exploration is not the primary political issue debated, but it has always been a
controversial public policy. Past public opinion polls show the cost of the program never
garnered strong support. During the 1960s and the Apollo Program, many questioned if human
spaceflight was the best use of public resources. By the end of the program, missions were
eliminated and many wondered if the funds could have been used more efficiently on domestic
programs (Benson & Faherty, 2007). At the height of the Apollo Program, the budget for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, was four and a half percent of the entire
federal budget. Currently, that number is one half of one percent (Callahan, 2014).
Despite this drastic reduction in the proportion of the budget they receive, NASA still
produces substantial results. However, these results are not evident in the time-frame public
opinion concentrates on. Most space goals take years and even decades of planning; much
longer than election cycles and some political careers. Overall, space exploration is an effective
use of government resources because many of the innovations needed to explore space have
quantifiable benefits on Earth, a cutting-edge space program is vital to mobilizing a generation,
and a functional space program is crucial for national security.
The resources provided to NASA become an investment in the economy of the United
States. Multiple estimates are out there, and range between a $7 and a $14 return to the economy
for every $1 dollar invested in NASA. A more conservative estimate comes from a report
published on the NASA website that says for every $1 of NASAs budget, $2.60 is returned to
the economy (The Tauri Group, 2013, p. 10).
NASAs budget is invested in both research and manufacturing. Some of this research
and manufacturing is subcontracted out to private companies which also spreads the economic
rewards across the country. It is estimated that for every spin-off of a NASA innovation, $1
million is returned to the economy. These numbers are not specific because no set criteria exist
for measuring the impact (The Tauri Group, 2013, pp. 11-12). Although it is the consensus the
impact is significant.
Not all the innovations NASA produces or finances are only used in the space program.
Many innovations that sprang from space exploration have become a part of everyday life. This
list includes GPS, infrared ear thermometers, improved solar panels, LEDs, cordless vacuums,
cordless drills, and improved radial tires (NASA, n.d.). People use these and many other items
and without realizing the investment of public money in the space program is responsible for
their invention.
Another example of the importance of NASA support for a developing technology is the
story of the integrated circuit. The integrated circuit chip was an untested technology when it
came on the market from Fairchild Semiconductor. Most people did not trust its reliability, but
some engineers at NASA thought it would be perfect for some of the systems on the Apollo
spacecraft. A rigorous set of criteria were established to ensure the dependability and durability
of the chips (Ceruzzi, 2015). This improved both the production and provided a stamp of
approval for a new technology as well as an influx of needed capital to an emerging industry.
Now these chips are in almost everything vital to modern society.
 NASA research has also benefited human health. Many medical discoveries have roots
in research done for the space program. Ventricular Assist Devices (VADs) can be traced back
to research done by NASA (NASA, n.d.). Many of the osteoporosis drugs used to prevent or
slow the bone loss that comes with aging can be sourced back to research for the space program.
Long duration space flights in zero-g cause astronauts to lose bone mass. These drugs help to
slow or counteract that loss. There are many other examples and the research continues with
some potential discoveries waiting to be announced with the study of the Kelly twins after one
spent a year on the International Space Station.
A lively and dynamic space program is also beneficial in mobilizing a generation.
During the last application period for astronauts, NASA received a record number of
applications. In fact, they received three times as many applicants as they had during the last
application period four years earlier (NASA, 2016). This record interest in the space program
can be attributed to a renewed focus on pushing the American goals in space forward. However,
it is not just about getting people interesting in being astronauts. Support personnel are needed
to build the rockets, write the software, and calculate the numbers. The turnover in these
positions is very high so replacements are needed, but also the people that leave eventually go on
to work on technology and research that continues to impact our lives.
Interest in the traditional STEM fields, science, technology, engineering, and math, rises
in popularity when the American space program has a clear goal and is in the public
consciousness. In 2011, NASA had over 8,000 applications for internships, fellowships, and
scholarships (The Tauri Group, 2013, p. 24). This renewed interest in the scientific fields will
help drive innovation for generations. More people trained in science and technology adds to the
marketplace of ideas and helps to perpetuate that drive.
A competent space program is also valuable for national security. The technology
needed to launch a rocket is comparable to the technology needed to launch an intercontinental
ballistic missile. The foundation of the space program is found in the ideas of missile designers
like Werner von Braun and Robert Goddard. This was a large motivating factor for the United
States government to invest so heavily in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. The Cold
War rivalry was not just about bragging rights on being first to explore something new. The
technological innovations were necessary to control the literal high ground.
In modern society, the national security benefits are not found just in military use of
space hardware. The real security benefit lies in the international cooperation that space
exploration demands. This cooperation is essential to spreading out the financial burden but also
crucial to finding all the researchers and engineers needed. A very deep talent pool is required
and a single nation cannot meet that demand.
Nations with shared interests are less likely to resort to armed conflict. They are more
likely to pursue peaceful resolutions, thus ensuring the security of all nations. Currently, the
United States and Russia have a contentious political relationship, but in space they are partners.
The International Space Station, ISS, could not exist or thrive without this cooperation. The US
and Russian space programs are partners when it comes to the safety, maintenance, and cost of
sustaining the ISS. This international partnership extends to the European Space Agency, the
Japanese Space Agency, and other countries with emerging space programs.
Support for NASA has wavered over the last three presidential administrations with
multiple starts and stops. The policy of the George W. Bush administration was to go back to the
moon with the Constellation program. When Barak Obama came into office, he canceled that
program because of cost overruns and folded some of its programs into a long-term goal of
sending humans to Mars. The Donald Trump administration has refocused on going back to the
Moon with talks of establishing a permanent presence there. Each time policy has shifted cost
has been a primary concern. With the constant push to cut governmental budgets, the need to
protect and advocate for NASAs budget is crucial. Oversight is needed but long-term planning
and commitment are necessary because the results can be radical and unexpected. The products
from the investment in the space program have tangible benefits on Earth in the form of
technological innovations, an increased emphasis on science education, and international
cooperation that minimizes the risk of armed conflict.

Works Cited

Benson, C. D., & Faherty, B. W. (2007, March 26). Pruning the Apollo Program. Retrieved
November 3, 2017, from Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and
Operations: https://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-4204/ch22-8.html
Callahan, J. (2014, August 27). The Competition for Dollars. Retrieved November 23, 2017,
from The Planetary Society: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/2014/0826-
nasas-competition-for-dollars.html
Ceruzzi, P. (2015, October 14). Apollo Guidance Computer and the First Silicon Chips.
Retrieved November 16, 2017, from Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum:
https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/apollo-guidance-computer-and-first-silicon-
chips
NASA. (2016, February 19). Record Number of Americans Apply to #BeAnAstronaut at NASA.
Retrieved November 3, 2017, from NASA.Gov: https://www.nasa.gov/press-
release/record-number-of-americans-apply-to-beanastronaut-at-nasa
NASA. (n.d.). NASA Spinoffs. Retrieved November 3, 2017, from NASA Technologies Benefit
Our Lives: https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html
The Tauri Group. (2013, April). NASA Socio-Economic Impacts. Retrieved November 14, 2017,
from National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SEINSI.pdf