Point-Counterpoint: Exploration of Space

Two first-year students from Professor Eric Grosfils' freshman seminar on the Exploration of Space square off on the merits of a mission to Mars.

The Hope and Obligation of Space

Human beings are naturally curious. There are, no doubt, some innate human characteristics that drive us to question, test and explore the environment around us. It was this thirst for knowledge that drove humans to step out of Africa, cross over the Bering Land Bridge and sail around the world. This pioneering spirit will always be deeply ingrained in each and every one of us. It would be foolish to deny this essential part of our being at a time when our technology finally permits us to explore our environment more fully than ever before.

This desire for knowledge is a common thread that unites all of humanity. One of the grandest motivations for space travel, in fact, is its potential to serve as a singular goal around which the entire world can unite. The very process of exploring other planets pre-supposes that the explorer is serving as a representative of the whole planet.

Of course the difficulty with this vision is the question of money and resources. Nations, it seems, will inevitably be required to provide economic support for these massive space exploration programs. As a result there is an inescapable tension between the goals of this type of world-unifying space travel and the agendas of political states. One danger is a new "Space Race," with countries competing--perhaps even militarily--when they should be cooperating.

Earlier this year, President Bush announced a new vision for NASA saying, "We'll invite other nations to share the challenges and opportunities of this new era of discovery. The vision I outline today is a journey, not a race, and I call on other nations to join us on this journey, in a spirit of cooperation and friendship."

I desperately want to believe this statement, since I see space as a phenomenal avenue for nations to come together and look beyond their differences. However, I'm also wary that the shortsightedness of national agendas will blind people to the ultimate good that can come out of worldwide cooperation in space exploration

Despite this fear, I see a lot of positive signs that space exploration is becoming more international. The most obvious of these is the International Space Station. However, the time has come for us to think beyond Earth orbit and look to more ambitious targets, such as Mars and a return trip to the Moon.

We know that goal-setting galvanizes progress. In the glory days of NASA, it was President Kennedy's formal challenge to put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade that spurred a decade of technological progress.

Then too, we must also examine the consequences of not continuing our exploration of space. For instance, consider the possibility of a planet-wide catastrophe in the form of an asteroid or comet with the potential to completely wipe out life on Earth. Some may write this off as science fiction, but Earth's history would suggest otherwise.

Roughly 65 million years ago an impact from an asteroid 10 kilometers in diameter wiped out the dinosaurs along with 70 percent of life on the planet. This real threat provides a great incentive to explore other planets for the purpose of setting up an independent human colony that would give mankind a chance to survive were Earth to undergo such a catastrophe.

Outer space exploration is not simply an option we have the luxury of being able to refuse, but rather an obligation we must fulfill. For more reading on the subject check out Robert Zubrin's book The Case for Mars. 

—Matthew Sauter '07

Counting the Financial and Ethical Cost

In these days of tax cuts, program cuts and fiscal crises, it's strange to hear a call for expansion of an unessential agency such as NASA. Certainly space is a popular and mysterious subject, but the space program is for the most part not fundamental to the average American's everyday life. Strangely, this did not deter the President from planning an expedition to Mars.

Before people become too excited about the implications of the proposed program, however, two fundamental questions must be examined: How much is such an endeavor really going to cost, and is it worth it?

Money is the biggest sticking point in Bush's plan. The economics of launching material from Earth's surface is prohibitive, especially for a project of such scale. Using modern rocketry, the cost of putting a pound of material into space is roughly $5,000. Consider the very generous example of a rocket system capable of carrying one pound of payload per six pounds of rocket. Using this system, a lunar vehicle weighing four tons would cost over $140 million dollars to place on the Moon. How much to design, build, transport and then support a fully operational lunar facility? The figures are unimaginable.

The difficulty of launching material into space is only partially acknowledged in Bush's plan. The plan recognizes that supporting a prolonged human presence on Mars is impossible from the Earth; that is the reasoning behind the lunar base. The Moon lacks a strong gravitational pull, so it requires little force to escape its surface. If ships could be restocked or even partially constructed on the Moon instead of the Earth, launch costs would plummet. The rationale for a proposed lunar base is based on this fact. However, I find it disturbing that there is little mention of the enormous cost of establishing and operating such a base. Bush merely mentions the need for "additional resources" and offers up his Congressional appeal for an additional billion dollars as well as the reallocation of another $11 billion within the existing budget as a "solid beginning."

This is not a solid beginning. NASA has an annual budget of $15.3 billion, of which a sizeable portion is devoted to supporting the barely functioning shuttle and International Space Station programs. Establishing a lunar base complete with shuttle launching capacity, industrial facilities and life support is on a completely different level from these old programs, one that will require a completely different level of funding.

Not only does there need to be a serious reevaluation of the cost of such an undertaking, we should also reflect upon our motivation in this matter. When I first heard Bush proclaim that the next step for the human race is to explore the cosmos, it made me think. Why should we go? Vague predictions about technological advances are mentioned, but progress can be made just as easily through small-scale scientific missions such as Galileo. Simply justifying such an expedition by the adventurer's spirit is unacceptable as well. Lewis and Clark's expedition did not demand a large chunk of America's annual budget.

Bush fails to present a reason why space is the "next logical step." He was elected on a platform which included less government spending. He has asked for and gotten multiple tax cuts. Embarking on a mission to Mars is in no way consistent with his domestic agenda, nor is it ethical as schools across the nation are being forced to deal with drastic cuts.

The announcement of such a plan should immediately arouse suspicions about the administration's actual motivation for such plans and whether even they view their own goals as realistic. 

—Erin Noble '07