Is Funding Space Exploration Worth The Risk?

Jonathan Sylvera

English 111
Mrs. Erskine
December 18 2015

Jonathan Sylvera

Space truly is the final frontier for mankind. The human race has just about colonized
every habitable space on this planet. The human race has reached some astonishing milestones.
From small tribes in Africa, to Kings and Queens in the largest castles the world has ever seen,
and not to mention the colonization of the rest of the world, humans have always had the natural
instinct to be better than they were yesterday. With this never-ending need to expand, an
inevitable situation becomes more pressing. Humans face a multitude of obstacles if they wish
to continue to grow as a whole. Dealing with population control, as well as the pollution levels
rising, we need an answer soon. The possibility of discoveries is something that pushes many to
believe that NASA might have the solutions the human needs. Whether or not to fund NASA as
well as other space exploration programs is a heavily debated topic. The Pros and Cons of both
sides lead to a very heated and controversial debate.
Money is the first stop on the debate tour. This is a heavy topic due to the facts from
both sides. A popular argument is that the U.S. is too far into debt to fund NASA to go play in
space. The U.S. debt is above $14.2 trillion, half owned by foreign countries. In 2011 tax
revenues 2.3, expected to be 3.6 trillion (Calabresi). 14 trillion dollars, to some, is too much of
a hole for the United States to be in for us to continue to support. On top of the battle with
domestic and foreign enemies financially, the fact that the recent space shuttle mission cost
209 Billion dollars (Farrer). 209 Billion dollars is a lot of money to be asking from a government
who obviously can not keep itself above water as is. The counter argument to this money debate,
are the strives in the scientific field. Scientist have helped engineering re-usable launch vehicles
that would drop the launch cost from $10,000 to around $500 per launch (Miller). While this

Jonathan Sylvera

amount does not seem like much compared to the overall cost of 209 billion, it shows that
tweaks, if need be, can be made to cut down on operating costs. Another counter argument is the
advances during the missions. In Yuhas article, he talks about the fact that red romaine lettuce
was grown aboard the Expedition 44. This huge milestone shows the improvement of the
sustainability of long-term space missions. With the newfound courage of sustainability and
reducing of operating costs, the facts posted in Spotts article about there being a 92% chance of
another planet suitable for human life to exist is out there, is a real swing. After 13.8 Billion
years in existence and over 100 million trillion Earth-sized planets in habitable zones of their
host stars, the likelihood of their being other intelligent life is very convincing. These types of
arguments, the undeniable statistics and helpful advancements to the current space programs
might be what the pro space exploration side of the argument need to amass more followers to
solidify their cause.
One of humans greatest enemies moving forward is themselves. The exponential growth
of the population is forcing the need to find a new place to inhabit. A recent study has shown
that there is an 80% chance that Earths population will reach 10.9 billion by the end of the
century (Spotts). The problems human face that they must overcome increase as the population
does. From running out of resources, to not having enough land, humans are faced with many
problems. If the population were to max out at just around 11 billion at the end of the century,
food will become a crisis. The human race has trouble feeding all of its members as it is today
and adding roughly 3 billion more would cause chaos. Alongside a lack of food is a lack of
space. There is already poverty and homeless problems in the worlds current state and adding

Jonathan Sylvera

more people to the equation will certainly not help. NASA could help this situation with space
discovery. Along side of the growing population, is the threat of pollution. As more and more
people add to the overall population, they are inadvertently ruining the planet. While some
people recycle as well as other green things, the vast majority of the human race pays no
attention to the amount of waste and pollution they produce on a regular basis. Scientists talk
about the individual carbon footprints and recycling, but are the actual threats known well
enough? There are places in the where the air is unhealthy to breathe and if people knew this
horrifying fact, finding a group large enough to support anything other than fixing problems such
as this would be tough.
After looking at both sides of the argument, many factors still need to be looked at.
Aside from the financial and statistical arguments, there are proven to be more points. With the
war on terrorism on the rise the nations attention is everywhere but science. The nation is
looking for safety within itself, defense against the unpredictable and not sending people into the
unknown. Another issue that arises with the topic of space travel is the simple fact that we may
want to know what is beyond or even within our own Solar System. Space is a vast unknown
space and whether you are for it or not, you can not deny the fact that we are just a little part of a
much bigger universe. Some people are against this idea due to fear. If space exploration was to
be funded and scientists ventured out into space, the chances of running into something bad are
simply too much for some. The odds of finding a new disease or another hostile life form are
very influential to some. On the other hand, if NASA was to continue to be funded, the human
race may stumble upon something great. Whether it be a new resource, or a friendly species to
help mankind. Which outcome would happen is something the human race does not know. The

Jonathan Sylvera

final point is the realistic argument. If people where to jump ship from Earth, how easy would
it be? With pollution becoming more and more of a threat, if our solution was to move to a new
planet, would it be possible? One-half of the argument is that it just simply is not realistic to
move over 7 billion people to a new planet. It is not like packing your family in a U-Haul van
and moving down the street, it is moving billions of people and belongings millions of miles
away. While this does not seem possible, some make the argument that if people were to
approve of the plan now, humans could slowly move to a new host planet. This could take
hundreds of years and billions of dollars, but the potential benefits could be worth it. Regardless
of what side is the majority side, the success of their decision is hard to tell due to the lack of
immediate effects.
Whether or not to fund space exploration simply has too many pros and cons to have a
definite answer in the near future. With the Pros being, potential new home planet, safety from
over population and other disasters. The Cons also have their arguments with the cost, the
realistic view of the aspect, and the question of whether or not its worth it. Arguments over this
matter involve everyone from investors to scientists to government officials and finally to
everyday humans. There will always be those who are fascinated with space exploration and see
it as a way to fix the problems faced by humans and there are those who are against it and view it
as a waste of money and time. Space exploration is a highly unpredictable area and what happens
in the field is hard to see in the present so we must look for answers in the future.

Jonathan Sylvera

Work Cited
Calabresi, Steven G. "The United States Should Adopt a Balanced Budget Amendment." Government
Spending. Ed. Nol Merino. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2013. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from
"The Answer Is a Balanced Budget Amendment." http://spectator.org (Oct. 2011). Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Fuller-Wright, Liz. Earth-sized planet discovered: Is our galaxy teeming with habitable worlds?
Christian Science Monitor 17 Apr. 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Miller, Charles. "Back to the Moon--For a Fraction of the Old Price." Wall Street Journal. 03 Feb. 2012:
A.17. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15 Dec. 2015.
"Pollution levels in capital found to breach EU limits." London Evening Standard [London, England] 19
Nov. 2014: 2. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
"Should We Fund Space Exploration?" KQED Education. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Dec. 2015.
Spotts, Pete. "What's Likelihood Another Planet Will Host Intelligent Life?..." Christian Science
Monitor. 20 Oct. 2015: n/a. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15 Dec. 2015.
Spotts, Pete. "Why estimate for world population in 2100 is now 11 billion." Christian Science Monitor
19 Sept. 2014. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 12 Dec. 2015.
Yuhas, Alan. "Nasa Astronauts Take First Bites of Lettuce Grown in Space: 'Tastes..." The Guardian. 10
Aug. 2015: 3. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 15 Dec. 2015.