Why explore space?

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission to Mars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth.

Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of "Earthrise," the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, "Why Explore Space?"

http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/08/why-explore-space.html

[Inanimate Carbon Rod]

I expect his waste-paper bin contained another screwed up one that just said 'get stuffed you crabby old, god-bothering baggage'! 

[ApolloGnomon]

Similarly, why bother learning how to walk? Isn't it just easier to lie on the floor and let someone else pour pre-chewed food into your mouth?

Just to put things in perspective, the entire value of the AIG bailout (cash and credit lines) would have paid for NASA's annual budget (at current levels) for ten years.

The contractually obligated bonus AIG paid out that caused so much kerfluffel? That would have paid for 1/3 of one shuttle launch.

[Not Myself]

I expect his waste-paper bin contained another screwed up one that just said 'get stuffed you crabby old, god-bothering baggage'! 

That's pretty much the answer given whenever this topic comes up at Bad Astronomy.

Similarly, why bother learning how to walk? Isn't it just easier to lie on the floor and let someone else pour pre-chewed food into your mouth?

I don't think I'd use that one if I were lobbying for space exploration funding, but hey, whatever floats your boat.

I have, however, discovered that it is possible to donate money to NASA.

http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/npg_img/N_PD_1210_001G_/N_PD_1210_001G__main.pdf

Here is a financial report.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/636350main_Financials_NASA-FY2011-PAR-4-3-2012.pdf

There's a $15 million item called "Donations and Forfeitures of Property" in a section called "Other Financing Sources".  There may be further detail in the footnotes; I didn't bother looking.

I'd be interested what answers members of this board will have to three questions.

a) How much do you plan to donate to NASA (or other space exploration agencies) next year?
b) How much do you plan to donate to feed starving children in Zambia or other such places next year?
c) How much do you plan to spend on cable television next year?

[Zakalwe]

a) How much do you plan to donate to NASA (or other space exploration agencies) next year?
b) How much do you plan to donate to feed starving children in Zambia or other such places next year?
c) How much do you plan to spend on cable television next year?

Brilliant!

It sorta puts in into perspective. Look up the annual spend on fast food, soda, cigarettes. Then wonder why our priorities are so out of whack.

[Echnaton]

Questioning the wisdom of spending money to go to the moon vs feeding starving children in Zambia, while legitimate, is also a false dichotomy.  If the Congress had not funded the space program, the money would not instantly have been allocated to foreign aid.  It either would have been mostly allocated to other domestic purposes or left in the hands of those who earned it.  While the money could have helped feed, educate and otherwise alleviate the suffering of many children, it would not have bought an end to the desperate poverty in Zambia alone, much less the rest Africa.  Poverty is a complex issue and is not caused by an absence of money in the world.  Sub-Saharan Africa seems almost immune to the globalization that has brought so many people out of poverty during the past 100 years.  In fact globalization seems to be counter productive to Africa.    So we should keep asking the question, but also answering it in a rational way.

a) How much do you plan to donate to NASA (or other space exploration agencies) next year?
b) How much do you plan to donate to feed starving children in Zambia or other such places next year?
c) How much do you plan to spend on cable television next year?

a) None
b) We give a few hundred dollars to Doctors Without Borders every year and make other donations to groups that work with the local homeless. 
c) None, we cut the cable earlier this year. 

[Not Myself]

Questioning the wisdom of spending money to go to the moon vs feeding starving children in Zambia, while legitimate, is also a false dichotomy.  If the Congress had not funded the space program, the money would not instantly have been allocated to foreign aid.

I believe the person whose letter to the Zambian nun was posted, made a similar statement.  Whether it's a false dichotomy or not depends, in my opinion, on whether we're asking what ought to be done ideally, or what ought to be done within the constraints of the political environment.  And of course, in the US and other developed countries, nothing turns a person with "share the wealth" socialistic tendencies into a "you're on your own" capitalist faster than asking whether they think their wealth should be shared with people in other countries; just look at how they feel about Chinese workers competing against them and stealing "their" jobs.  Taking political constraints into account, starving Zambian children are most likely going to get even less than NASA.

But I see  comparisons of the NASA budget to other sums (including in this very thread) all the time, even if realistically reduction/cancellation of the other expenditure is not automatically going to get transferred to the NASA budget.  If the answer to "Why shouldn't we cancel the space programme and spend the money on starving African children?" is "no point in even asking the question, because realistically, we would never do that", then I'm not sure why comments about how much Iraq war cost relative to the NASA budget ought to be treated any differently.  And I see that one all the time.

Slightly OT, but: the Iraq war was great in this regard.  It gives ammunition to everyone who wants to spend money on anything at all.  "My idea may be really really stupid, but if the government can afford the Iraq war, it can afford my idea!"

It either would have been mostly allocated to other domestic purposes or left in the hands of those who earned it.

This of course is true; I believe the person who wrote that letter that was referenced earlier made a similar argument.

So if I were to write the letter today, it would say, "The people in my country do not care in the slightest how many children are dropping like flies in yours.  If we cancel our space exploration plans, it is certainly possible the money will be spent on social welfare programmes instead; however, the recipients of such welfare will be people in our country, who are much richer than people in yours.  Don't be deceived by any rhetoric about 'helping the poor' and the like in our newspapers and other outlets for political discourse; when people here talk about 'helping the poor', they're sure as hell not talking about helping you.  So you are on your own; your country will have to develop economically and lift its people out of poverty on its own.  But, if it does, and workers in your country start to compete effectively against workers in our, be prepared for protectionist measures designed to prevent the relatively poorer workers in your country from 'stealing' jobs from the relatively richer workers in our country.  Such protectionist measured, designed to help the rich at the expense of the poor, will be accompanied by much pious rhetoric about 'helping the poor'.

In short, you won't get any money, because nobody here cares how many of you die.  See to your own welfare."

Brutal, but honest, and the last sentence is probably the only path out for them.

While the money could have helped feed, educate and otherwise alleviate the suffering of many children, it would not have bought an end to the desperate poverty in Zambia alone, much less the rest Africa.

Sure, but I'm not sure how that's an argument for or against anything.  Space exploration isn't going to solve all the scientific/technical/engineering problems out there any time soon either.

Poverty is a complex issue and is not caused by an absence of money in the world.

I think poverty is more or less defined as an absence of money held by the people who are poor.

Sub-Saharan Africa seems almost immune to the globalization that has brought so many people out of poverty during the past 100 years.  In fact globalization seems to be counter productive to Africa.

I don't think I'd go as far as that.  Africa hasn't done anywhere near as well as Asia, and some of the countries are actually worse off than at the end of the colonial era.  But I don't think the situation is completely hopeless.  Maybe I'm clutching at straws, but I see some signs of progress there.

The last two US presidents did probably about the only realistic thing they could to help poor Africans, which was to open up for trade.  And I have to give them some credit for that, since GWB did it despite his party's indifference towards helping the poor, and Clinton did it despite his party's open hostility towards helping the poor.

So we should keep asking the question, but also answering it in a rational way.

I'm not sure where the irrationality in asking the question here is, unless it is the false dichotomy to which you alluded at the beginning, and I would argue that there is no such false dichotomy unless realistic politic constraints imposed.  And realistic political constraints probably exclude a significantly increased space exploration budget as well.  I don't see anyone here saying, "we shouldn't talk about what the benefits of increased space exploration would be, because we won't get the budget".  So I'm not sure why someone with an alternative priority shouldn't talk about their presumed benefits (and it would be hard to do so with less rationality than some of the pro-space exploration arguments I see here and at Bad Astronomy), even if it's not likely that they would get the money they want.

a) How much do you plan to donate to NASA (or other space exploration agencies) next year?
b) How much do you plan to donate to feed starving children in Zambia or other such places next year?
c) How much do you plan to spend on cable television next year?

a) None
b) We give a few hundred dollars to Doctors Without Borders every year and make other donations to groups that work with the local homeless. 
c) None, we cut the cable earlier this year.

OK, that's one poll answer.

[gwiz]

a) How much do you plan to donate to NASA (or other space exploration agencies) next year?
b) How much do you plan to donate to feed starving children in Zambia or other such places next year?
c) How much do you plan to spend on cable television next year?

a) None
b) We give a few hundred dollars to Doctors Without Borders every year and make other donations to groups that work with the local homeless. 
c) None, we cut the cable earlier this year. 

My answer would be very similar, though my favourite charity is Shelterbox.

[Echnaton]

I believe the person whose letter to the Zambian nun was posted, made a similar statement.  Whether it's a false dichotomy or not depends, in my opinion, on whether we're asking what ought to be done ideally, or what ought to be done within the constraints of the political environment. 

I was speaking of the practical matters of governance...

Slightly OT, but: the Iraq war was great in this regard.  It gives ammunition to everyone who wants to spend money on anything at all.  "My idea may be really really stupid, but if the government can afford the Iraq war, it can afford my idea!"

,,,and this is exactly why.  Making the abstract comparison between potential uses of taxpayer funds makes an even grosser error.  That there is some unspoken by underlying moral comparison between the choices.  Is immoral to work to advance knowledge in the face of the great current poverty or does the possible advancement mean less suffering in the future. Making this comparison is a emotional argument for a political decision for which there is no logical answer. 

While the money could have helped feed, educate and otherwise alleviate the suffering of many children, it would not have bought an end to the desperate poverty in Zambia alone, much less the rest Africa.

Sure, but I'm not sure how that's an argument for or against anything.

It wasn't meant to be an argument, but an observation.  The problem with making abstract and arbitrary comparisons of a following a practice goal like the moon landing vs feed the poor is that we can actually complete the later goal.  My thought is that it is an open ended request.  Governments can't ever do what is needed to end poverty in Africa.

I think poverty is more or less defined as an absence of money held by the people who are poor.

I think of poverty as the absence/inability/unwillingness of a person to do productive work that provides for more than subsistence.   Money is a store of value and the lack of money is a symptom of having no excess value in ones work.   

I don't think I'd go as far as that.  Africa hasn't done anywhere near as well as Asia, and some of the countries are actually worse off than at the end of the colonial era.

That is my point, while much of the world is becoming wealthier, some areas of Africa are slipping further into poverty through ethnic and religious strife.  The desperate poor hold tightly to what little they have, in many cases it is the very identities that contribute the most to their poverty.

The last two US presidents did probably about the only realistic thing they could to help poor Africans, which was to open up for trade. 

I agree that more open trade is the best thing we can do to help reduce poverty.

So we should keep asking the question, but also answering it in a rational way.

I'm not sure where the irrationality in asking the question here is, unless it is the false dichotomy to which you alluded at the beginning, and I would argue that there is no such false dichotomy unless realistic politic constraints imposed.  And realistic political constraints probably exclude a significantly increased space exploration budget as well.  I don't see anyone here saying, "we shouldn't talk about what the benefits of increased space exploration would be, because we won't get the budget".  So I'm not sure why someone with an alternative priority shouldn't talk about their presumed benefits (and it would be hard to do so with less rationality than some of the pro-space exploration arguments I see here and at Bad Astronomy), even if it's not likely that they would get the money they want.

Asking the question is not irrational.  And asking a question with a false moral dichotomy is not always bad either.  We just need to be able to answer them in a rational way. 

[Laurel]

Whenever I hear this question, my mind flashes on Dave Scott at Hadley Rille, saying that there's a fundamental truth to our nature: "Man must explore, and this is exploration at its greatest."

[ka9q]

Back to the reasons to have a space program:

I've spent my career as an electrical engineer in the communications industry. I married late and we have no kids, but we still care very much what happens to the world after we're gone. So over time I've become increasingly interested in education; no other investment pays off so well and so consistently.

But education isn't just taking classes; it's also about learning on your own. Some people prefer to keep a rigorous separation between work and play, but that's not me. I consider myself lucky to have a profession and a hobby (ham radio) in the same field.  When I interview prospective engineers at work, I look for an interest in learning on one's own just for the fun of it. One of my company's founders -- another radio ham -- has a "law" that states anything you do at home in ham radio will probably find a use at work within 6 months. It happens all the time.

What does all this have to do with space exploration? I've seen (and felt) first hand the effect that it has on young people. Even today it has a power to inspire like nothing else. Sure, every kid goes through an 'astronaut phase' but more importantly some of them get interested in one or more of the many technical disciplines in space travel. At age 12 I was as fascinated by Apollo's communications as by humans walking on another world.  Apollo helped inspire me into my career, even though it's been only peripherally connected with space (occasional work on communications satellite systems).

One of my main ham activities has been AMSAT, the hams who design, build and operate their own satellites (when we can get somebody to launch them). We've collaborated with several university satellite programs. Satellite construction and operation is a highly interdisciplinary activity. You need skills in mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, math, astronomy, geography, metal working, lab construction, systems engineering and engineering management. We collaborate internationally, and that may need foreign language and diplomacy skills. And building a satellite gives students who spend most of their time sitting in class and taking exams a taste of real-world engineering.

So the bottom line is that space exploration isn't just about scientific knowledge (though that's very important) or stimulating technological development (though that's very important too) or entertaining the public (very important if you want funding). It's also about inspiring young people into getting an education and entering technical careers, and how can you put a value on that?

At my workplace, many of the engineers have green dots on their badges. That denotes a foreign citizen without permanent residency. They get paid the same and the government certainly doesn't make them easy to hire, so why so many? Simple: there aren't enough qualified US citizen engineers. Yet everyone in this country complains about a lack of jobs. What's wrong with this picture?

Visit the science and engineering departments on any US college campus and you will see a lot of foreign students. I suppose we can take some solace in the fact that the US still has an excellent balance of trade in higher education.

I strongly support robotic space exploration, and for a time I thought most human space flight was a waste of money -- especially the shuttle and ISS since neither is exploring other worlds. But I kept thinking back to Apollo and its personal effect on me, and I realized that human space flight can still play an important role in inspiring young people. That may even be the single most important reason to have such a program. I have become convinced that if we had maintained a vigorous human space program after Apollo -- one that actually explored Luna, Mars, Phobos, an asteroid, anything -- the US would now have many more engineers and scientists and we'd be a lot better off in many ways.