To Reach for the Future

Nicholas R. Tibbetts

Over forty-seven years ago, President John F. Kennedy brought America into the Space

Race with the Soviet Union. He pledged that America would land a man on the moon within the

eight years remaining in the decade. In his September 12, 1963 speech, he explained why: “We

choose…to do [these] things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard…” America

succeeded. Neil Armstrong became the first human to set foot on the orbiting satellite in 1969.

However, after only six successful missions, America abandoned its lunar exploration missions

and confined itself to orbiting Earth for the next thirty-five years. In 2004, President George W.

Bush renewed America’s commitment to space exploration, calling for a return to the moon and

eventual exploration of Mars and the inner solar system. Although critics view the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as another government bureaucracy with an

unnecessary and costly budget and uninteresting and irrelevant mission, the United States of

America should make space exploration a priority.

Human space exploration has been strictly confined to low-earth orbit since the

conclusion of the Apollo Program in 1972. After public interest in the Apollo Program waned in

the beginning of the 1970s, President Nixon decided to scale back all proposed NASA programs

and confine space travel to low-earth orbit. In fact, “since 1972, the year of the last Apollo lunar

mission, no human has ventured farther from the Earth’s surface than 386 miles,” (Human Space

Flight, 29) which is “roughly the distance from Washington, D.C., to Boston, Massachusetts,”

(Bush). America’s space program has been constrained to using decades-old technology, namely

the aging space shuttle, to build a multi-billion dollar space station that will be operational for

only years after its completion. While the international collaboration that has been instrumental
 Tibbetts 2

in building the International Space Station (ISS) has been constructive to global peace and trade

efforts, the amount of resources, financial and time-consuming, has been regressive. As seen in

Figure 1-1, which displays the initial comprehensive plan for space exploration from the late

1960s, American exploration has not advanced past the 1970s phase. In this phase, America was

to develop a space shuttle and space station, which would be used for research and as a

temporary base for future missions. As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “What manner of creature

are we? It took 100,000 years for humans to get inches off the ground. Then, astonishingly, it

took only 66 to get from Kitty Hawk to the moon. And then, still more astonishingly, we lost

interest, spending the remaining 30 years of the 20th century going in circles in low earth orbit,

i.e, going nowhere,” (Krauthammer). For the last three decades, America has been fascinated

with absolutely nothing. There have been limited examples of scientific and technological

advances while the American taxpayer funds a multi-billion dollar program that only shows that

we can still put a man in space. There are only two options for the future of space exploration:

quit or move forward.

In order to advance NASA’s current mission under the Vision determined by President

Bush in 2004, development of the Constellation program has begun. The Constellation program

(CxP) is a series of vehicles currently being developed to fulfill the objectives of the next

generation space exploration missions. The program requires advances in technology, mainly

propulsion, communications, and electronics, which are expected to revolutionize the private

industry. As seen is Figure 1-2, the launch vehicles are roughly the size of that used in Apollo.

Unique to CxP is the use of two separate launch platforms: the Ares I, which will house the crew,

and the Ares V, which will carry cargo. This will allow more equipment and experiments to be

brought per mission. The Ares I consists of the rocket and the Orion Crew Module, which is

twice the size of Apollo’s. The Ares V will carry the Altair, the next generation lunar lander,
 Tibbetts 3

among its multitude of cargo. The CxP currently employs thousands of NASA’s best, among

those contracted to complete the development of these vehicles.

Poverty, unemployment, and homelessness are major issues in the United States and

many believe that spending billions on space exploration and technology research is a waste of

money while these problems exist. Over the next decade, the United States is expected to spend

around $100 billion on the Human Spaceflight Program alone (United States 8). NASA’s budget

for FY 2010 is a mere $18.69 billion dollars (Cabbage and Schierholz): only 2.67 percent of the

2009 Obama $700 billion stimulus package and thirteen one-hundredths of one percent (0.13%)

of the 2010 United States 14.729 trillion dollar GDP. Over five trillion American dollars have

already been spent to abolish poverty and suffering in the United States alone (Krauthammer).

NASA’s budget accounts for thirty-seven one-hundredths of one percent (0.37%) of this figure.

These statistics, as reproduced in Table 1 and Chart 1, clearly demonstrate how fractional

NASA’s budget is in terms of other expenditure spending of the United States government. In

contrast to the money being spent to stimulate the economy and provide welfare for struggling

citizens, the 18.69 billion dollars that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is

confined to is insignificant. In fact, according to the 2009 Human Space Flight Plans Committee

report, NASA’s budget may be too limited. With the many variables and outside factors that are

encountered in technology development and research, NASA’s budget is unreasonably confined,

setting up programs for failure and delay. For example, the space shuttle is scheduled to retire at

the end of fiscal year 2010. The Committee also believes that the development and production

of Constellation entirely depends on reallocation of funds from the space shuttle program.

However, in order to maintain American human spaceflight capabilities, the shuttle may be

forced out of retirement, constricting resources, mainly financial, from the CxP (United States
 Tibbetts 4

10). NASA is expected to work with a constrained budget to create and innovate technology that

will allow its missions to be successful.

Regardless of its mission, NASA continues to improve the American – and global – way

of life. With advances in, among other things, power, computing, communications, networking,

robotics, and materials, NASA’s impact has revolutionized the world. How successful would

cell phone communication or global positioning systems be without the use of satellites and

technologies pioneered by NASA? All satellites are pioneered using technology NASA

developed. In order for the proposed lunar and Mars missions to be successful, new technologies

will need to be invented, innovated, integrated, and developed. The NASA Lunar Architecture

Requirements Preparatory Study (LARPS) 2006 report describes what technologies will need to

be incorporated into the Constellation program for it to be successful. Advances in life support,

surface mobility, in-situ resource utilization (ISRU) technology, power, robotics, geoscience and

bioscience analytical equipment, medicine, dust mitigation, and communications will all need to

be made. For example, research and prototyping is currently being accomplished at NASA

centers for ISRU technology in which astronauts will be able to extract key elements – hydrogen

and oxygen – from lunar regolith (soil) (LARPS 15). The current advances in dust mitigation are

essential for mission success; using these technologies allows astronauts to keep the fine lunar

dust away from sensitive technologies, such as computers, and will revolutionize the private

home-keeping market. Efforts to make payloads lightweight might lead to new power sources,

lighter materials, and smaller computing systems. These inventions and innovations will

certainly lead to a better way of life.

The United States government has repeatedly predicted shortages of trained personnel in

the engineering and science fields. This shortfall is expected to worsen as early as 2016. NASA

employees mainly consist of scientists and engineers, and the excitement that is produced is
 Tibbetts 5

inspirational to any generation. During the height of the Apollo Program, many Americans made

it a point to watch the missions. The excitement generated by NASA during this period of time

was the reason many became engineers and scientists. During this current period of global crises,

it is essential that Americans have something positive to inspire them. Imagine the excitement

that would be generated when watching man step foot on the moon for the first time in over forty

years!

There are those in government with a conservative view who view NASA as another

example of a large government bureaucracy. Those with this view believe that private

companies, such as Virginia-based Orbital Sciences Corporation or California’s Space

Exploration Technologies Corporation (Space-X), could develop the infrastructure and

technology faster, more economically, and more efficiently than NASA can. While it is true that

private industry historically does accomplish goals better than the government, NASA is the only

feasible organization that can succeed at these missions. Because of the infrastructure

framework established during the space race with the Soviet Union in the 1960s, NASA has

more resources and materiel that makes it the realistic choice to accomplish the goal. With

centers in Houston, Cape Canaveral, Wallops Island, Langley, and a host of other continental

locations, NASA currently directly employs just under 20,000 people and has contracted jobs to

over 200,000 more, (Partnership for Public Service). This network enables private industry to

work together with NASA to achieve a goal. However, private industry is not funded by tax

dollars and not under the same federal oversight. In December 2009, Virgin Galactic, a private

aerospace company, unveiled its first commercial spaceship. SpaceShipTwo, as it has been

named, is build from lightweight composite materials and can launch six passengers and two

pilots into space for $200,000 a ticket (Chang). The competition produced by the private market

is able to generate new and greater ideas. While the private market may one day become the
 Tibbetts 6

most viable alternative to creating aerospace products and providing space exploration services,

there is not a large current demand outside of NASA and the infrastructure is not yet in place to

practically fund and develop spacecraft that will be able to achieve American space exploration

goals.

The American space program has been restricted to low-earth orbit missions for the last

three decades, leading to stagnation in aerospace development and advances in technology.

However, under the Vision set forth by President George W. Bush in 2004, development of the

Constellation program – the next generation in lunar and Mars exploration – has begun. The

National Aeronautics and Space Administration has a limited budget which is far overshadowed

by other government spending, which restricts progress and efficiency of NASA programs. This

is seen in the failure and the over-simplification of many NASA missions. However, with

efficiency and the correct budgeting, many technological advances in multiple fields will be

made through development of CxP. This will directly lead to the rise in the standard of living for

America and allied nations. The Constellation program and subsequent exploration will also

inspire the next generation of engineers and scientists, preventing expected shortages in these

fields. Although private industry may greatly contribute to the exploration of space, it

unfortunately does not yet have the infrastructure to support such a demanding mission.

America must make space exploration a priority; it must be our duty to go boldly into the

unknown and enhance and better ourselves and those around us. Only through exploration of

this final frontier will we greatly understand who we are and expand our knowledge. The

challenge is out there and we should go “not because they are easy, but [especially] because they

are hard.”
 Tibbetts 7

Appendix and Acronyms

 Tibbetts 8

Figure 1-2: A comparison of the launch vehicles from the three major NASA programs: the
Apollo-era Saturn V, the Space Shuttle, and the Constellation Program’s Ares I and Ares V
rockets.

Expenditure Amount (in billions US Percent FY2010

dollars) NASA Budget
Composes
FY2010 NASA Budget 18.69 100%
2009 Obama Stimulus 700 2.69%
Package
Total USA Has Spent on 5,000.0 0.37%
Welfare
2010 USA Gross Domestic 14,729 0.13%
Product
 Tibbetts 9

Table 1

Chart 1-1 Visualization of Table 1-1. Notice how fractional the FY2010 Budget is in
comparison to the 2010 GDP in Column 4.

List of Acronyms

CxP – Constellation Program

ISRU – In-situ Resource Utilization

ISS – International Space Station

LARPS – Lunar Archictecture Requirements Preparatory Study

NASA – National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Works Cited

Bush, George W. "The United States Must Make Space Exploration a Priority." At Issue: Space

Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing

Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2 Dec. 2009.
Chart 1-1 Visualization of Table 1. Notice that the NASA FY2010 Budget is barely
Cabbage, Michael
noticeable and Stephanie
in column four. Schierholz. “NASA Announces Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.”

Headquarters: Washington. 7 May 2009. 3 Dec. 2009.

<http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html>.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Space Exploration Should Focus on Mars and the Colonization of Other

Worlds." At Issue: Space Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven

Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2

Dec. 2009.
 Tibbetts 10

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Lunar Surface Missions Team. “Lunar

Architecture Requirements Preparatory Study (LARPS)”. Langley, Virginia. June 7,

2006.

Partnership for Public Service. “The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2009:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.” 2009. 22 Dec. 2009.

<http://data.bestplacestowork.org/bptw/detail/NN00>.

United States. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. “Seeking a Human Space Flight Program

Worthy of a Great Nation.” Washington. 2009.

<http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf>.
 Tibbetts 11

Bibliography

Achenbach, Joel. "Mars Mission Has Some Seeing Red." Washington Post. Washington, DC. 11

Feb. 2009. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School (VA). 11 Dec. 2009.

Bush, George W. "The United States Must Make Space Exploration a Priority." At Issue: Space

Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing

Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2 Dec. 2009.

Bonta, Steve. "Space Exploration Should Be Funded by the Private Sector." At Issue: Space

Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 2005. Opposing

Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2 Dec. 2009.

Cabbage, Michael and Stephanie Schierholz. “NASA Announces Fiscal Year 2010 Budget.”

Headquarters: Washington. 7 May 2009. 3 Dec. 2009.

<http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/may/HQ_09-102_FY2010Budget.html>.

Chang, Alicia. "Virgin Galactic unveils commercial spaceship." Associated Press. Yahoo! News,

7 Dec. 2009. Web. 7 Dec. 2009.

<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_space_tourism>.

Gott, J. Richard III. "Why We Must Leave Earth." New Scientist (London, England) Vol. 195,

No. 2620 Sept. 8 2007: 51-54. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School (VA). 11 Dec.

2009.

Griffin, Michael. "Why Explore Space?." NASA (U.S. National Aeronautics & Space

Administration). Jan. 17 2007. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School (VA). 11 Dec.

2009.

Krauthammer, Charles. "Space Exploration Should Focus on Mars and the Colonization of Other

Worlds." At Issue: Space Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven
 Tibbetts 12

Press, 2005. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2

Dec. 2009.

Lafferty, Mike. "Apollo 2.0." Columbus Dispatch. Columbus, OH. 17 Apr 2007. SIRS

Researcher. Arcadia High School (VA). 11 Dec. 2009.

Manier, Jeremy. "NASA Unveils 'Apollo on Steroids' Plan to Return to the Moon by 2018."

Chicago Tribune. Chicago, IL. Sept. 19 2005. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High School

(VA). 11 Dec. 2009.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Lunar Surface Missions Team. “Lunar

Architecture Requirements Preparatory Study (LARPS)”. Langley, Virginia. June 7,

2006.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration. "Space Exploration Will Play an Important

Role in America's Future." Opposing Viewpoints: America in the Twenty-First Century.

Ed. Andrea C. Nakaya. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2006. Opposing Viewpoints Resource

Center. Gale. Arcadia High School (VA). 2 Dec. 2009.

Partnership for Public Service. “The Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 2009:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.” 2009. 22 Dec. 2009.

<http://data.bestplacestowork.org/bptw/detail/NN00>.

Spotts, Peter N. "From Japan and L.A., Moon Ventures Seek to Tread Familiar Turf: The

Moon." Christian Science Monitor. Sept. 17 2007. SIRS Researcher. Arcadia High

School (VA). 04 Dec. 2009.

United States. Human Space Flight Plans Committee. “Seeking a Human Space Flight Program

Worthy of a Great Nation.” Washington. 2009.

<http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/396093main_HSF_Cmte_FinalReport.pdf>.