|
Human Spaceflight: the Pursuit of Happiness
Over the course of history, humans have been captivated by the mysteries of the heavens and many have dreamed of the opportunity to venture into that final frontier. However, the question arises whether it is really worthwhile to send humans into space because of the expense or because of the risk of death. Yet, when President John F. Kennedy committed the United States to landing on the moon by the end of the 1960s, he knew that the journey into space would be a difficult one. It is important to understand that it is inevitable and necessary that we face difficulties throughout the spaceflight program, for, as the President said, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Anyone can support the human spaceflight program as long as they have a little faith and the perseverance to overcome the difficulties. For instance, even after the assassination of President Kennedy, Americans knew that it was necessary to persevere, for the sake of Kennedy's legacy and because it was impossible to give up on the journey we had already embarked upon. So then, what determines whether one supports or opposes the human spaceflight program is obviously dictated by our priorities. For me, determination and an instinctive desire to learn are the elements that ought to drive our passion for exploring the unknown and searching out the truth. Thus, not only is it worthwhile to pursue human spaceflight, it is crucial in defining us as human beings.
When considering whether or not the United States government should be supporting a human spaceflight program, many various issues are raised. Should we colonize the solar system, especially if our life on Earth is threatened? We already experience enough problems on Earth, so why should we expend the money to support a human spaceflight program? Why should we risk human life to travel into space? Does the human spaceflight program benefit us, and in what ways? Should we only send robots, and not humans? Is the emotional experience of putting people in space worthwhile? None of these issues are as important as the experience of sending humans into space, compared to the other issues which merely focus on tangible subjects, such as money. It is through these experiences in space that we fulfill human nature.
First, let us consider one of the most significant issues in determining the future of the human spaceflight program: that of whether we should colonize the moon or Mars, especially if our existence on Earth is threatened by, say, an asteroid. Opponents would argue that we cannot sacrifice the solar system's pristine environment when we have the entire Earth to ourselves. Plus, if we tried to colonize space, it would only strain international relations as countries raced to claim the planets as their own. Proponents would argue that we need to pursue a human spaceflight program so that we can expand the human race beyond Earth, and we should learn how to travel to and inhabit another planet in case we can no longer live on Earth. This could popularize the idea of commercial spaceflight, allowing NASA some competition from private industry.
However, we have already made our presence well-known in space by launching hundreds of satellites and spacecraft, left to roam the universe forever. Admittedly, we have intentionally crashed some spacecraft, such as Galileo which traveled to Jupiter, so as not to leave any bacteria from the earth out in space. Thus, if we pursue space travel in such a manner so as not to disturb the pristine environment of space, we may do so. Unfortunately, I do not trust that we will be able to accomplish that, for it is only inevitable that we will bring all of our earthly problems with us into space, thus demolishing the idea of creating some kind of "ideal" society in space. Consequently, I think we should remain on the earth and succumb to whatever our fate may be instead of trying to evade the inevitable: "Then the end will come, when [Jesus] hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power" (1 Cor. 15:24). I firmly believe that God gave us the earth to live on, not any of the other planets, and at the end of the universe, everything will be destroyed anyway. Then again, commercial spaceflight to low-Earth orbit could be beneficial by allowing more people, other than the astronauts, to experience space and by allowing NASA to focus on the rest of the solar system. For example, private industry would control low-Earth orbit while NASA would work on a human mission to Mars. Accordingly, we should not worry about colonizing the solar system, but we can allow for low-Earth commercial spaceflight and other spacecraft sent out into the solar system as long as we are careful in our approach to sending these craft.
Next, money is obviously one of the greatest concerns for Americans in considering the human spaceflight program because we want to know that our money is going towards something worthwhile. Though many people would like to see the human space program continue, they are frequently unwilling to provide the financial support because they find that the program is not so important. As author John Logsdon explains,
This policy outcome was perhaps the worst possible situation--not enough funding for
successful operation of the Shuttle, but also inadequate political commitment behind an
effort to replace it. It was most fundamentally a reflection of the place that human space
flight held, and perhaps continues to hold, in the list of national priorities-- something
that most Americans want to see continue but are unwilling to invest enough resources in
to do well. (Logsdon 2006, 292)
Accordingly, those who consider money a priority think that the space program consumes too much of our hard-earned money, and it could be put to better use elsewhere. For instance, we could spend the money on social causes that directly benefit us. During the Space Age, according to historian Roger Launius, "the majority of Americans ranked NASA as the government initiative most deserving of reduction, and its funding redistributed to Social Security, Medicare, and numerous other programs. While most Americans did not oppose space exploration per se, they certainly questioned spending on it when social problems appeared more pressing" (Launius 2006, 363). It is understandable that many Americans are not willing to spend the money to support the human spaceflight program when we have so many other financial burdens. Nevertheless, proponents of the program argue that it only takes up a small proportion--approximately one percent--of the total budget of the United States. And even if we stopped spending money on the space program, it is doubtful that the money would benefit other social causes.
As far as I am concerned, I do not think that money ought to be the main issue. The American public ought to be more willing to spend our money on the human spaceflight program instead of on other wasteful, destructive things like drugs and alcohol, and the government should not be spending so much money to fix those problems with drugs and alcohol. For instance, Americans spend $90 billion on alcohol each year, and the government spends $100 million on health care for those people (Alcohol). Also, the government does not need to spend more money on social programs like Social Security or Medicare. In fiscal year 2010, the United States government devoted most of the national budget--19.63 percent--to Social Security and another 12.79 percent to Medicare. NASA received 0.53 percent of the budget, while only about half of that was devoted to the human spaceflight program--and NASA has consistently received less than one percent of the budget since the peak of the Apollo program (Federal Budget). Ideally, if we stopped spending money on NASA, we could use the money to pay off our national debt or to help people who really need it, but money really is not as valuable as the knowledge we gain by sending humans into space. Money is only temporary and does not affect one way or the other whether we fulfill our purpose in life, which I believe is to discover as much as we can about the universe: "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge" (Pslm. 19:1-2). Learning is our inherent ability, and money should not stand in the way of that.
Now, probably the most difficult issue to deal with is the cost in terms of lives--is it right to tolerate the risk of death so that we can fulfill political agendas or go into space simply because we feel like it? Opponents say that we cannot take the risk of sending humans into space and then lose them. Proponents say that the astronauts freely, willingly sacrifice their lives doing what they love, especially if they can help us understand more about our universe and further the education of the human race. We hate to lose people, but we must be proud of the astronauts' passion for space exploration and strive to further the legacy of the deceased.
I say that it is not only for the sake of spaceflight that people sacrifice their lives: others have died exploring the earth as well. The Apollo 1 fire, the Challenger breakup, and the Columbia shuttle explosion were merely accidents and they cannot so easily bring a halt to our progress. Instead, these tragedies can ultimately help us. For instance, Apollo 1 essentially was the result of carelessness and complacency and the incident came as a tragic blow to the Apollo program, but it demonstrated the need to revamp the spacecraft to ensure supreme safety. Consequently, as long as the astronauts continue to believe in the work they are doing, death should not be able to stand in the way of progress. Thus, the astronauts are good examples of human beings that try to live their lives to the fullest in hopes of advancing all of human kind.
The next issue raised by the United States human spaceflight program is that of whether the program actually benefits us as individuals. The program has been a very significant part of our culture, especially in terms of what we have gained scientifically and technologically, but do these societal benefits provide enough motivation to continue the program? Perhaps human spaceflight was most beneficial during the Cold War, when President Kennedy was determined to reach to moon before the Soviets for the sake of national pride. Now, with the development of practical, affordable robotic spacecraft, the human spaceflight program seems unnecessary. Conversely, human spaceflight continues to benefit us, especially in the field of medicine, which directly applies to our lives on the earth.
Continue -->
|
|
