Jon Weidner | WRTG3030 | 10/19/2018

RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Introduction

The human race has been reaching new boundaries since our nomadic roots millennia ago. We
conquered new frontiers, crossing seas into the new world, diving deep into the ocean, and peering into
the microcosms in which bacteria dwell. In 1957, humanity reached farther than ever before, putting
machine into space. The United States felt a collective responsibility to be the pioneers in this new
domain, increasing the space budget to levels never peered since. That effort put Americans on the
Moon within 12 years, forever planting our footprint beyond Earth. Since that time, America’s
superiority and drive in space has dwindled. Currently, the US has no launch capabilities to put
astronauts on the International Space Station, relying on Russian Soyuz rockets instead. In fact, NASA
does not possess any launch vehicle at all until at least 2019, ever since retiring the Space Shuttle in
2011. Luckily, private companies have picked up the slack that NASA left behind in recent years.
Companies such as ULA (a joint operation between Lockheed Martin and Boeing), Northrop Grumman,
SpaceX, Blue Origin, and others have made huge strides in the past decade to keep dominance in space
for the United States.

Background

The budget for NASA was around 4% of the National budget in the mid 60’s at the peak of the
space race. Now it is only 0.5% (NASA 2015). But the general public has a vast unawareness of this fact.
The overall mission and direction of NASA also tends to shift every presidency, which contributes to the
lack of progress made in furthering our cosmological reach. The point is, NASA is objectively not pushing
the envelope like it used to, but there are several initiatives the administration is looking at for future
focus missions. There are fundamental questions out there on where do we go next? Should we go back
to the Moon, perhaps make a lunar base for farther missions decades from now? Do we go straight for
Mars, braving the incredibly dangerous and difficult journey with no lifelines? Do we send more probes
to asteroids and attempt to tow one into Earth’s orbit for mining purposes? Or should we ignore those
endeavors, as they are too costly and show no value to taxpayers?

The general public has mixed feelings about NASA (Pew 2014), most people would likely think
what NASA does is cool, but is it worth the money that could be spent in healthcare, education, or
something else more pertinent to everyday life? Do people even know what NASA is doing now, do they
have any idea what the plan is for future space exploration? What is the opinion of the public on what
NASA should do next?

My research is based on the question on what people think the direction of the space industry
should be. I am not only looking to find the most popular opinion, but I am also looking for a correlation
between general understanding of NASA and the industry, with what that direction should be. Do
academics within the space industry think we should head to the Moon while average Joe is vehement
about trailblazing to Mars? Is there no trend, or is there a discernable relationship, and if so, how strong
is it? I aim to answer these questions by establishing a baseline of each participant’s awareness of the
industry, then asking questions to gauge their opinion on the future of space travel.
 Jon Weidner | WRTG3030 | 10/19/2018

Hypothesis

I have a hypothesis on what I think I will receive from my study. I am inclined to believe that
those with extensive background and knowledge in the space industry will be more favorable in a
mission to return to the moon then one going to Mars or asteroids. Industry experts are familiar with
the dangers inherent of human space travel to Mars. It will require a massive amount of a new unproven
technology, years of research, and a huge cost. Wally moon mission is not breaking boundaries like it
used too, we can still overcome barriers that have not been mantled before, such as extra-terrestrial
bases. A lunar base would be Proving grounds for new technologies that enable habitation in harsh
environments. It would allow a more permanent base operations in space, as it is less prone to flying
debris or the thin atmosphere of low-earth-orbit. Radiation shielding is also easier when you have land
mass at your disposal, and the whole prospect of mining can be tested on the lunar surface long before
we will ever grab an asteroid. The most significant advantage to building lunar base first is that it is
inherently much less risky for NASA and for the astronauts involved. If a catastrophic failure were to
occur, it would still be practical for a rescue team to be dispatched in order to save the original
astronauts. This is simply impossible with any Mars mission as the transit time is at least half a year. To
put it more succinctly, a lunar mission is an excellent stepping stone for future missions that pore
deeper into the cosmos. Mars missions will certainly follow, but if they succeed lunar conization
attempts, feasibility of the Martian missions will be significantly improved. The same goes for any
asteroid mining mission.

One additional advantage to lunar missions is that it could be used as a method for producing
refueling depos. It takes a massive amount of fuel to get heavy rockets from earth to an orbit with the
energy to reach the moon, so if those ships want to ever make it to Mars or somewhere else, it would
be advantageous to have a way to refuel in this high energy orbit using cislunar orbital refueling
stations. If transport vehicles are able to tap off full tanks of fuel all the way in cislunar space, the extra
energy will allow these ships to reach Mars quicker than the normal 6-month period by being less
efficient with the additional fuel that they have. Therefore, it's safe to conclude the lunar mission would
be a less risky investment both in the short term and long-term scale. Failed missions are what have
killed NASA before, so it would be in their best interest to be as practical as possible in each step they
take.

On the contrary, I hypothesize that the general public will be more in favor of a Mars mission.
Embarking on a brave new journey to another planet beckons to the time of the Apollo age, when
exciting new developments in space were occurring every year. Going to a whole new planet has much
more mainstream appeal then returning to the moon. Getting public support for colonization of Mars is
probably an easier task then convincing the general public that is in the best interest for NASA to return
to the lunar domain. Without considering the technical difficulties, it just makes sense to go where we
haven't gone before. The sense of pride earned in the early 70s would be regained if Americans were
the first step on Mars, and people are generally persuaded by the pathos in this argument. In this, the
argument for going to Mars first is one based upon passion rather logic.

This research is not based on persuasion however, it is intended to gauge the public opinion,
thus, the interactions with participants will be specially tailored so as to not influence their responses
with bias.
 Jon Weidner | WRTG3030 | 10/19/2018

Significance

What is the importance of this question? If NASA has a better understanding of the public
opinion as well as what that opinion is based upon, NASA can make more intelligent decisions. The
taxpayers of America are the bosses of NASA, thus, they need to be pleased and NASA expends a lot of
effort to do so. If Americans are oblivious to the fact that the Space Shuttle was retired 7 years ago, that
we haven’t been to the Moon in over 40 years, that we do not even have a rocket capable of ferrying
astronauts to the ISS, then NASA needs to work on its education program. Americans should know about
the progress of our space program. Past research has already shown that the average American vastly
overestimates the budget and capability of NASA, so their perception is not sound in foundation. This
study aims to determine if that perception changes based on the quality of the foundation. This will help
NASA in their target demographics to improve public support. With more public support,
representatives will be more inclined to approve greater funding, which is exactly what NASA needs in
order to accomplish its goals.

Literature Review

A few studies have been conducted on similar material to that explored by my proposal. The Pew
Research Center found a few notable statistics relevant to the research I am proposing, and also qualify
the statements made previously. The center found in 2011 that 34% of Americans believe that the space
program [NASA] contributes to national pride and patriotism. 74% agreed that NASA contributes at least
“some” to scientific advancements, half claiming the contributions to be “a lot”. A 2009 study showed
that three in four Americans believe that NASA “does more good than harm”, with two in three Americans
believing that the International Space Station has been a good investment for the country. In a January
2015 study, two in three Americans expressed a favorable view of NASA, narrowly being beaten by the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at 70% approval. Another 2010 study revealed that 63%
of Americans expect that we will put astronauts on the surface of Mars by 2050.

A survey conducted by the National Opinion Research Center’s General Social Survey (GSS)
showed that 23% of Americans think we spend too little on space exploration, 42% think we spend the
right amount, and 25% believe we spend too much. A majority believe that more national funding should
be given to practically useful areas like education.

These studies show general opinions and trends; however, they are completely uncontextualized
and without the correlations I aim to draw. My objective is to get more recent perspectives on the industry
but map them to the ‘Space competency’ of participants, providing the crucial connection that gives the
information meaning. Contextual data is more valuable than gross data and may thus be used to greater
effect in the outreach programs offered by NASA, as well as the appropriations committees that decide
on funding figures.

Methodology

There are two sections to the survey I will be providing. The first Asks simple trivia-like or true-
false questions to help produce a ‘space competency score’ of their space industry awareness. Some of
the questions are as follows:

1. We currently use the Space Shuttle to transport astronauts to the ISS. T/F
2. What year was the most recent in which an astronaut stepped foot on the Moon?
 Jon Weidner | WRTG3030 | 10/19/2018

3. What is NASA’s budget in percent of total national budget?

4. What is the DoD’s budget in percent of total national budget?
5. How many different NASA facilities are there?

The participants will be graded on these questions and some more to assess their baseline
awareness. Then they will be asked questions about their opinions as follows:

1. Where should the next big mission for NASA be?

a. Humans on Mars
b. Human on Moon/lunar base
c. Asteroid mining
d. More advanced space stations
e. Nothing, NASA is too wasteful
2. How much do you think the NASA budget should be (realistically)?
3. Are you satisfied with the Shuttle program?
4. Are you satisfied with the progress made by NASA since the Apollo missions?
5. Do you wish you knew more about NASA and the space industry?

These questions and all further ones are designed to not give any bias toward certain directions by
avoiding charged language. They surveyor will not provide their opinion whatsoever on the second
portion of the survey. However, if it is found to be worthwhile, a third portion of the survey may
become available to those scoring low on ‘Space competency’, wherein the surveyor can provide correct
answers on the beginning portion, answer questions about NASA, or otherwise clear up any
misconceptions. This third portion will ask if any opinions or answers from the second portion have
changed since learning more about the industry. The results from this portion will be analyzed and
considered separately.

The data from the survey will be tabulated and correlated with the competency scores to analyze
any existing trends. The target demographic is two distinct groups: random CU students (to represent
general, but educated public), and professors/grad students within the Aerospace Engineering
department and Astronomy department. A goal is set to survey at least 40 CU students and 20 industry
experts. This should provide a good distribution of NASA awareness so that any relationship can be
drawn if it exists.

Upon approval of this research, my team will be given four weeks to draw conclusions. The first
4 days will be for polishing the survey by inspection and by testing with other individuals to look for
weak points or ambiguities. The next 20 days will be for the acquisition of data; my team will seek out
participants in a respectful manner and fill out the surveys in this time. The final 4 days will be for
collating data and analyzation. Conclusions will be drawn and the final report on the study will be
written and submitted.
 Jon Weidner | WRTG3030 | 10/19/2018

Bibliography:

1. FY2019 President’s Budget Request Summary., NASA, 2018

2. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/04/23/americans-keen-on-space-exploration-less-
so-on-paying-for-it/
3. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/07/14/5-facts-about-americans-views-on-space-
exploration/
4. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/11/21/nasas-budget-as-far-as-
americans-think/#.W8CnkeJReUk
5. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/03/nasa-popularity-still-sky-high/
6. Center for Cultural Studies and Analysis. American Perception of Space Exploration: A
Cultural Analysis for NASA. Philadelphia, PA: Center for Cultural Studies and Analysis,
2004.
7. Dick, Steven J., and Roger D. Launius. Societal Impact of Spaceflight. Washington, DC: NASA,
2007.
8. Parker, Martin, and David Bell (eds.). Space Travel and Culture: From Apollo to Space Tourism.
Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell/Sociological Review, 2009
9. Delgado, Laura M. "When inspiration fails to inspire: A change of strategy for the US space
program", Space Policy, vol. XXVII, no. 2 (May 2011), p. 94-98.
10. Smith, H.A. "Public Attitudes towards Space Science", Space Science Reviews, vol. CV, nos. 1-2
(2003), p. 493-505.
11. Steinberg, Alan. "Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and
NASA funding", Space Policy, vol. XXVII, no. 4 (Nov. 2011), p. 240-246.
12. "Public opinion polls and perceptions of US human spaceflight", Space Policy, vol. XIX, no. 3
(Aug. 2003), p. 163-176.