Celebration of space exploration needed


By
 in ,

When astronaut Scott Kelly, who blasted into orbit on Friday for a one-year stay on the International Space Station, returns to Earth in March 2016, he will have spent more time in space than any other American astronaut. Scientists hope that his year in zero gravity will help establish the physical and psychological effects expected of long-term space missions, including an eventual NASA expedition to Mars.  Meanwhile, Dutch nonprofit Mars One is working to establish the first permanent and sustainable human colonies on the red planet, with a launch date scheduled for 2024. All of this comes on the heels of a tide of scientific literature suggesting the prior existence of water on Mars, and the likely presence of other sentient life in the universe. Therefore, recent undertakings point to outer space as the last and greatest frontier for human discovery.

Yet, despite the promise of extraterrestrial research, NASA’s funding remains highly contentious in annual congressional budget battles. Cuts to NASA’s $17.6 billion budget threaten the five decades of science and infrastructure that have been the crowning achievement of human innovation. The shrinking of the agency’s funding is not merely a consequence of recession-era pullbacks. In fact, since 1973 — the end of the Apollo lunar missions — NASA’s annual allotment has gradually declined from 1.35 percent of government spending to less than 0.6 percent.

Still, recent debate over the financial future of the agency has become particularly vitriolic. Lamar Smith, a Tea Party Republican from Texas who currently heads the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has derided much of NASA’s work as frivolous. GOP presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz has described the agency’s exploration of the outer solar system as a “political distraction.” These criticisms have bolstered concerns among the scientific community that GOP control of both houses of Congress will result in a draconian diminishment of grant funding and scientific spending.

Such cuts would be entirely unjustified. Even aside from the grand wonder of discovery, investment in space exploration yields tremendous advantages. Money allotted to NASA helps power innovative companies in the private sector and encourages the development of technologies that heighten prospects for the economy and security. Today, our ability to compress and transmit large data over the Internet is mostly the result of telecommunications research conducted by NASA engineers. The informational networks, the predecessors to the computers of today, were founded at the space agency. Much of the technology that we take for granted today has trickled down from the laboratories of some the country’s top space scientists and engineers.

Additionally, the study of other planets and their climate histories could help us predict the changes in earth’s climate due to increased greenhouse gases. And of course, every dollar invested in space exploration brings us one step closer to definitively answering the most primitive of scientific inquiries: Are we alone in the universe? Prominent hypotheses — from claims of fossils on Mars to suggestions that Jupiter’s moon Europa may hold oceans of water — posit that the answer to that question is just around the corner. Finding it will unlock a world of further research and might help clarify the murky story of life’s origins.

The politicization of this scientific field is not only inconvenient, but unjust. Politicians urging cuts to NASA and other extraterrestrial research grants disservice their constituents, depriving them of the knowledge and benefits to be derived from further space exploration. We must celebrate the immense achievements that have been made thus far and renew our commitment to a peaceful and determined mapping of the universe.

Austin Reagan is a junior majoring in environmental studies and political science. His column, “The Scientific Method,” runs Mondays.