Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Dear sci.space.policy community,

I wrote an article a couple of days ago for spacedaily.com - hopefully
it will be soon published - where I address the age-old question
whether space exploration is worth pursuing while there are other
needs on Earth.
The article follows

----------

Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?

Virgiliu Pop, Timisoara, January 13, 2004



The new space policy of the Bush administration, aimed at taking the
humankind back to the Moon and on to Mars, came under fire before even
being released. In their bid at the Democratic nomination for the
White House, several politicians criticized George W. Bush's grand
space plans, arguing that the money would find a better use here, on
Earth. "I also want to explore planet Earth and planet D.C.," Dennis
Kucinich said. Al Sharpton too suggested that Bush instead try to
discover the lower-income parts of Washington. "I mean, it won't cost
as much ... and it would be just as enlightening for him ". ?
Lieberman stated that the money would be needed "right here on Earth
to give health care that's affordable to everybody, to improve our
education system, and do better on veterans' benefits and homeland
security ". And Howard Dean agreed that "space exploration is
terrific", but went on to ask - "Where is the tax increase to pay for
it? It is not worth bankrupting the country ."

Since the beginning of the space era, it has been argued that the
money spent on space exploration should rather be used on meeting the
needs of the underprivileged. "If our nation can spend … twenty
billion dollars to put a man on the moon, it can spend billions of
dollars to put God's children on their own two feet right here on
earth." - were stating respected figures like Martin Luther King Jr.
People like him were not necessarily opposing space exploration; they
were instead disputing the priorities - is space exploration worth
pursuing when money is so badly needed elsewhere? Unfortunately, the
benefits of the space exploration are not self-evident, no matter how
real they are. And people are genuine in their worry that money is
being wasted in space. Their concern with spending priorities needs to
be addressed.

The high profile of space exploration makes it appear more expensive
than it actually is. The uninformed, yet caring citizen, is under the
earnest impression that the money would make a genuine difference in
the fight against poverty. The real dimensions of the social needs
are, in reality, out of proportion with the money spent in space - be
it in the past, now or in the immediate future. Otherwise, there won't
be any social needs left after the Congress stopped funding the Apollo
missions to the Moon.
In the same time, many of the critics of the space programme on social
grounds are "limousine liberals". They point the finger at the US
government for wasting their tax money in space instead of helping the
poor, but they are not feeling guilty for their own consumerist life
style and for their own scale of priorities.

For instance, this year, total pet-related sales in the United States
are projected to be $31 billion - the double, almost to the cent, of
the $15.47 billion NASA budget . An estimated $5 billion worth of
holiday season gifts were offered - not to the poor - but to the
roving family pets - six times more than NASA spent on its own roving
Martian explorers, Spirit and Opportunity, who cost the American
taxpayer $820 million both . Instead of providing a launch pad for the
immorally expensive shuttles, Florida can do better and clothe the
underprivileged - a genuine alligator pet collar cost only $400 a
piece .
Are space rockets expensive toys for the big boys? In any case, they
cost les than the $20.3 billion a year spent in the US on the human
popular toy industry . One doesn't need toys to play with when the
most popular game is playing deaf and blind to the needs of the poor -
provided one criticizes the waste in space.
Instead of betting on the future, Americans spend $586.5 billion a
year on gambling . It is perhaps immoral to criticize one's personal
choice, so instead of kicking the habit and feeding the poor with this
money, one should stop instead the enormous waste in space who stands
at a scandalous amount of 40 times less than gaming tokens.
Speaking about personal choice, $31 billion go annually in the US on
tobacco products - twice the NASA budget -, and $58 billion is spent
on alcohol consumption -almost four times the NASA budget. Forget
space spin-offs - here are genuine tangible benefits: $250 billion are
spent annually in the US on the medical treatment of tobacco- and
alcohol-related diseases - only sixteen times more than on space
exploration.

In the eve of the launch of Apollo 11, a moving event occurred at
NASA's moonport. Reverend Ralph Abernathy, president of the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference and heir to Martin Luther King Jr.,
came to Cape Canaveral together with several hundred members of the
Poor People's Campaign, to protest the money being spent on space
exploration, while so many people remained poor. He was met by Thomas
Paine, the administrator of NASA, who was informed that in the face of
such suffering, space flight represented an inhuman priority and funds
should be spent instead to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, tend the
sick, and house the homeless.

Paine enlightened the good reverend that the advances in space
exploration were child's play compared to the tremendously difficult
human problems of the society, and told him that "if we could solve
the problems of poverty by not pushing the button to launch men to the
moon tomorrow, then we would not push that button ."

Here are $976.3 billion dollars - almost a trillion - spent every year
in the US on pets, toys, gambling, alcohol and tobacco. It is 63 times
the amount spent on space exploration - with the difference that NASA
has not destroyed lives as the alcohol, tobacco and gambling did. It
is not the exploration spirit that Americans need to give up in order
to alleviate poverty. It is the consumerist spirit.

Instead of not pushing the button, why not kick the habit?

----