Professional Documents
Culture Documents
English 111/Browning
Research Paper
Over forty-seven years ago, President John F. Kennedy brought America into the Space
Race with the Soviet Union. He pledged that America would land a man on the moon within the
eight years remaining in the decade. In his September 12, 1963 speech, he explained why: “We
choose…to do [these] things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…” America
succeeded. Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the orbiting satellite in 1969.
However, after only six successful missions, America abandoned its lunar exploration missions
and confined itself to orbiting Earth for the next thirty-five years. In 2004, President George W.
Bush renewed America’s commitment to space exploration, calling for a return to the moon and
eventual exploration of Mars and the inner solar system. Although critics view the National
unnecessary and costly budget and uninteresting and irrelevant mission, the United States of
Human space exploration has been strictly confined to low-earth orbit since the
conclusion of the Apollo Program in 1972. After public interest in the Apollo Program waned in
the beginning of the 1970s, President Nixon decided to scale back all proposed NASA programs
and confine space travel to low-earth orbit. In fact, “since 1972, the year of the last Apollo lunar
Tibbetts 2
mission, no human has ventured farther from the Earth’s surface than 386 miles,” (Human Space
Flight, 29) which is “roughly the distance from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts,”
(Bush). America’s space program has been constrained to using decades-old technology, namely
the aging space shuttle, to build a multi-billion dollar space station that will be operational for
only years after its completion. While the international collaboration that has been instrumental
in building the International Space Station (ISS) has been constructive to global peace and trade
efforts, the amount of resources, financial and time-consuming, has been regressive. As seen in
Figure 1-1, which displays the initial comprehensive plan for space exploration from the late
1960s, American exploration has not advanced past the 1970s phase. In this phase, America was
to develop a space shuttle and space station, which would be used for research and as a
temporary base for future missions. As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “What manner of creature
are we? It took 100,000 years for humans to get inches off the ground. Then, astonishingly, it
took only 66 to get from Kitty Hawk to the moon. And then, still more astonishingly, we lost
interest, spending the remaining 30 years of the 20th century going in circles in low earth orbit,
i.e, going nowhere,” (Krauthammer). For the last three decades, America has been fascinated
with absolutely nothing. There have been limited examples of scientific and technological
advances while the American taxpayer funds a multi-billion dollar program that only shows that
we can still put a man in space. There are only two options for the future of space exploration:
In order to advance NASA’s current mission under the Vision determined by President
Bush in 2004, development of the Constellation program has begun. The Constellation program
(CxP) is a series of vehicles currently being developed to fulfill the objectives of the next
generation space exploration missions. The program requires advances in technology, mainly
Tibbetts 3
propulsion, communications, and electronics, which are expected to revolutionize the private
industry. As seen is Figure 1-2, the launch vehicles are roughly the size of that used in Apollo.
Unique to CxP is the use of two separate launch platforms: the Ares I, which will house the crew,
and the Ares V, which will carry cargo. This will allow more equipment and experiments to be
brought per mission. The Ares I consists of the rocket and the Orion Crew Module, which is
twice the size of Apollo’s. The Ares V will carry the Altair, the next generation lunar lander,
among its multitude of cargo. The CxP currently employs thousands of NASA’s best, among
Poverty, unemployment, and homelessness are major issues in the United States and
many believe that spending billions on space exploration and technology research is a waste of
money while these problems exist. Over the next decade, the United States is expected to spend
around $100 billion on the Human Spaceflight Program alone (United States 8). NASA’s budget
for FY 2010 is a mere $18.69 billion dollars (Cabbage and Schierholz): only 2.67 percent of the
2009 Obama $700 billion stimulus package and thirteen one-hundredths of one percent (0.13%)
of the 2010 United States 14.729 trillion dollar GDP. Over five trillion American dollars have
already been spent to abolish poverty and suffering in the United States alone (Krauthammer).
NASA’s budget accounts for thirty-seven one-hundredths of one percent (0.37%) of this figure.
These statistics, as reproduced in Table 1 and Chart 1, clearly demonstrate how fractional
NASA’s budget is in terms of other expenditure spending of the United States government. In
contrast to the money being spent to stimulate the economy and provide welfare for struggling
citizens, the 18.69 billion dollars that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is
confined to is insignificant. In fact, according to the 2009 Human Space Flight Plans Committee
report, NASA’s budget may be too limited. With the many variables and outside factors that are
Tibbetts 4
setting up programs for failure and delay. For example, the space shuttle is scheduled to retire at
the end of fiscal year 2010. The Committee also believes that the development and production
of Constellation entirely depends on reallocation of funds from the space shuttle program.
However, in order to maintain American human spaceflight capabilities, the shuttle may be
forced out of retirement, constricting resources, mainly financial, from the CxP (United States
10). NASA is expected to work with a constrained budget to create and innovate technology that
Regardless of its mission, NASA continues to improve the American – and global – way
of life. With advances in, among other things, power, computing, communications, networking,
robotics, and materials, NASA’s impact has revolutionized the world. How successful would
cell phone communication or global positioning systems be without the use of satellites and
technologies pioneered by NASA? All satellites are pioneered using technology NASA
developed. In order for the proposed lunar and Mars missions to be successful, new technologies
will need to be invented, innovated, integrated, and developed. The NASA Lunar Architecture
Requirements Preparatory Study (LARPS) 2006 report describes what technologies will need to
be incorporated into the Constellation program for it to be successful. Advances in life support,
surface mobility, in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology, power, robotics, geoscience and
bioscience analytical equipment, medicine, dust mitigation, and communications will all need to
be made. For example, research and prototyping is currently being accomplished at NASA
centers for ISRU technology in which astronauts will be able to extract key elements – hydrogen
and oxygen – from lunar regolith (soil) (LARPS 15). The current advances in dust mitigation are
essential for mission success; using these technologies allows astronauts to keep the fine lunar
Tibbetts 5
dust away from sensitive technologies, such as computers, and will revolutionize the private
home-keeping market. Efforts to make payloads lightweight might lead to new power sources,
lighter materials, and smaller computing systems. These inventions and innovations will
The United States government has repeatedly predicted shortages of trained personnel in
the engineering and science fields. This shortfall is expected to worsen as early as 2016. NASA
employees mainly consist of scientists and engineers, and the excitement that is produced is
inspirational to any generation. During the height of the Apollo Program, many Americans made
it a point to watch the missions. The excitement generated by NASA during this period of time
was the reason many became engineers and scientists. During this current period of global crises,
it is essential that Americans have something positive to inspire them. Imagine the excitement
that would be generated when watching man step foot on the moon for the first time in over forty
years!
There are those in government with a conservative view who view NASA as another
example of a large government bureaucracy. Those with this view believe that private
technology faster, more economically, and more efficiently than NASA can. While it is true that
private industry historically does accomplish goals better than the government, NASA is the only
feasible organization that can succeed at these missions. Because of the infrastructure
framework established during the space race with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, NASA has
more resources and materiel that makes it the realistic choice to accomplish the goal. With
centers in Houston, Cape Canaveral, Wallops Island, Langley, and a host of other continental
Tibbetts 6
locations, NASA currently directly employs just under 20,000 people and has contracted jobs to
over 200,000 more, (Partnership for Public Service). This network enables private industry to
work together with NASA to achieve a goal. However, private industry is not funded by tax
dollars and not under the same federal oversight. In December 2009, Virgin Galactic, a private
aerospace company, unveiled its first commercial spaceship. SpaceShipTwo, as it has been
named, is build from lightweight composite materials and can launch six passengers and two
pilots into space for $200,000 a ticket (Chang). The competition produced by the private market
is able to generate new and greater ideas. While the private market may one day become the
most viable alternative to creating aerospace products and providing space exploration services,
there is not a large current demand outside of NASA and the infrastructure is not yet in place to
practically fund and develop spacecraft that will be able to achieve American space exploration
goals.
The American space program has been restricted to low-earth orbit missions for the last
However, under the Vision set forth by President George W. Bush in 2004, development of the
Constellation program – the next generation in lunar and Mars exploration – has begun. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a limited budget which is far overshadowed
by other government spending, which restricts progress and efficiency of NASA programs. This
is seen in the failure and the over-simplification of many NASA missions. However, with
efficiency and the correct budgeting, many technological advances in multiple fields will be
made through development of CxP. This will directly lead to the rise in the standard of living for
America and allied nations. The Constellation program and subsequent exploration will also
inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists, preventing expected shortages in these
Tibbetts 7
fields. Although private industry may greatly contribute to the exploration of space, it
unfortunately does not yet have the infrastructure to support such a demanding mission.
America must make space exploration a priority; it must be our duty to go boldly into the
unknown and enhance and better ourselves and those around us. Only through exploration of
this final frontier will we greatly understand who we are and expand our knowledge. The
challenge is out there and we should go “not because they are easy, but [especially] because they
are hard.”
Tibbetts 8
Figure 1-2: A comparison of the launch vehicles from the three major NASA programs: the
Apollo-era Saturn V, the Space Shuttle, and the Constellation Program’s Ares I and Ares V
rockets.
Tibbetts 9
100%
90%
80% Series2
NASA FY 2010
Budget
Series1
Comparison
70%
Expenditure
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
1
NASA FY2010 2 v. 2009
NASA FY2010 NASA FY32010 v. US 4
NASA FY 2010 v.
v. NASA Stimulus Package Welfare Spending US 2009 GDP
18.69 Billion Dollars 700 Billion Dollars 5,000 Billion Dollars 14,729 Billion Dollars
Chart 1-1 Visualization of Table 1-1. Notice how fractional the FY2010 Budget is in
comparison to the 2010 GDP in Column 4.
List of Acronyms
Works Cited
Bush, George W. "The United States Must Make Space Exploration a Priority." At Issue: Space
Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing
Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2 Dec. 2009.
Cabbage, Michael and Stephanie Schierholz. “NASA Announces Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.”
<http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html>.
Krauthammer, Charles. "Space Exploration Should Focus on Mars and the Colonization of Other
Worlds." At Issue: Space Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven
Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2
Dec. 2009.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Lunar Surface Missions Team. “Lunar
2006.
Partnership for Public Service. “The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2009:
<http://data.bestplacestowork.org/bptw/detail/NN00>.
United States. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. “Seeking a Human Space Flight Program
<http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf>.
Tibbetts 11
Bibliography
Achenbach, Joel. "Mars Mission Has Some Seeing Red." Washington Post. Washington, DC. 11
Feb. 2009. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School (VA). 11 Dec. 2009.
Bush, George W. "The United States Must Make Space Exploration a Priority." At Issue: Space
Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing
Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2 Dec. 2009.
Bonta, Steve. "Space Exploration Should Be Funded by the Private Sector." At Issue: Space
Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing
Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2 Dec. 2009.
Cabbage, Michael and Stephanie Schierholz. “NASA Announces Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.”
<http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html>.
Chang, Alicia. "Virgin Galactic unveils commercial spaceship." Associated Press. Yahoo! News,
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_space_tourism>.
Gott, J. Richard III. "Why We Must Leave Earth." New Scientist (London, England) Vol. 195,
No. 2620 Sept. 8 2007: 51-54. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School (VA). 11 Dec.
2009.
Griffin, Michael. "Why Explore Space?." NASA (U.S. National Aeronautics & Space
Administration). Jan. 17 2007. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School (VA). 11 Dec.
2009.
Krauthammer, Charles. "Space Exploration Should Focus on Mars and the Colonization of Other
Worlds." At Issue: Space Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven
Tibbetts 12
Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2
Dec. 2009.
Lafferty, Mike. "Apollo 2.0." Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, OH. 17 Apr 2007. SIRS
Manier, Jeremy. "NASA Unveils 'Apollo on Steroids' Plan to Return to the Moon by 2018."
Chicago Tribune. Chicago, IL. Sept. 19 2005. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Lunar Surface Missions Team. “Lunar
2006.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "Space Exploration Will Play an Important
Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource
Partnership for Public Service. “The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2009:
<http://data.bestplacestowork.org/bptw/detail/NN00>.
Spotts, Peter N. "From Japan and L.A., Moon Ventures Seek to Tread Familiar Turf: The
Moon." Christian Science Monitor. Sept. 17 2007. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High
United States. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. “Seeking a Human Space Flight Program
<http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf>.