Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Impact of the challenger disaster
Impact of the challenger disaster
How did the Challenger disaster impact space travel
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Impact of the challenger disaster
Since scientific funding is largely based on the public’s perception of a project, space exploration has always been an uncertain endeavor. The combination of public support and international competition fueled the expansion of humanity’s boundaries during the Apollo missions while the challenger disaster left a scar on the public’s view of human space exploration. I believe the government should allow the private sector to take the lead in manned space travel, yet it should liberally regulate the industry. There are many thing for both sides to gain if the government’s policy continues to allow companies such as Space X and Virgin Galactic to make decisions in the modern era of space travel. The US could save extravagant amounts of financial resources as companies have the opportunity to make a profit. On this note, the profit focus of industry will create more efficient ways to explore the cosmos. Similarly, the greater freedom companies have will allow much greater bounds in technology. The government cannot take large financial and safety risk which results in slower progress, but industry has much capital and much less social responsibility. …show more content…
The main issue stems from the ideal that if the government has full control, capitalism does not thrive. Some regulation is needed to prevent complete domination of space by a corporate empire and to set boundaries of that which belongs to the public. In addition, this government involvement can create incentives to steer the commercial sector towards US interest. It is best for lawmakers to allow people such as engineers to create these regulations as a result of their relevant knowledge in the field. With the help of these specialist, the government will be able to passively control space exploration without
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), was booming in the late 1960 's because the U.S. invested over 4.5 percent of the Federal Budget (Bolden). Unfortunately, in the recent years the Government has slashed funding for many of NASA’s projects in an attempt to cut back on the deficit and boost the economy. Despite the plummet in NASA 's budget, the program has proved that it 's prominence in the U.S., space programs like NASA continue to face difficulty in increasing its funds. Although, NASA leads Evidently, the government doesn 't think NASA is worth more than 0.47 percent of the federal budget. NASA is being underfunded and its funding should be substantially increased to make ends meet. This trend needs
Bill Nye, the “Science Guy,” asserts, “NASA is an engine of innovation and inspiration as well as the world's premier space exploration agency, and we are well served by politicians working to keep it that way, instead of turning it into a mere jobs program, or worse, cutting its budget.” The United States of America’s government is currently in an economic debt encompassing billions of US dollars. Unfortunately, the government has attempted to balance finances by cutting the funding for most programs, including NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA, in over half a century, has brought the most economic, technological, and social benefits than any other program held here in the USA, as well as any other extraterrestrial program in the world. The last thing this nation needs is the cutting of NASA finances. NASA should be receiving more funding because the Earth will not last forever and humans will need a place to live, there’s a curiosity within humans about the vast universe they live in, there is evidence to suggest life on other planets, the USA’s superpower status will be improved, and the economical income NASA brings is more efficient than any other governmental or educational program.
Space is also governed by rules and laws much like we do on land and sea. “Treaty on Principles Governming the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,” or commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty was signed in 1966 by many nations, including the Unites States, and is the basis for most international space laws and policies. Some key points to take away from this treaty in relation to the space weapons debate are the following: “(1) outer space is open to all nations to explore and use; (2) nations cannot own any portion of outer space; (3) outer space will be used for peaceful purposes; (4) nations cannot place, put in orbit, or station any weapons of mass destruction in any form in outer space.” (UNOOSA) These principles and laws are also mostly reflected in our nation’s space policy, and our national security space strategy.
Private space travel should be encouraged. Private space exploration can lead to many positive benefits for our country. With the no longer continued support of public funding to NASA the threat of losing our space programs as a whole is in jeopardy. Putting an end to our space programs would destroy the continuation of space related research and all hopes of the United States reaching Mars. Privately funded companies would allow for continued research, hope of one day putting humans on Mars and most importantly explore many new things that were once never an option with government funded programs. The encouragement of private space travel is vital for our country.
The question of whether or not to make space travel privatization functional has been a problem for the government, NASA, and for anyone else interested in space travel. Space travel privatization is about making private space companies to be able to send people into space. It relates to being able to earn enough money for more space companies to open up and benefits us with a possibility to send humans back into space again. Space travel should not be privatized because if done correctly, we will be able to travel to space, save money spent from buying seats on Russian spacecrafts, and to have more jobs in the space exploration fields.
As science and technology begin to improve society as a result of the growing numbers of factory and industry.
These are the reasons why I believe there should be more investment in space research and technology. It would be a time consuming and financially draining quest, but the pay off in new technology, applications, resources, and expansion opportunities make it a goal to strive for. As our rate of consumption of Earth’s natural resources continues to increase, it is imperative that we invest in the research of outer space as a possible solution to sustaining the human race.
When talking about the current space program, Neil Degrasse Tyson once said, “I got angry with America, because advancing is not just something you do incrementally. You need innovation as well, so that your advances are revolutionary, not merely evolutionary” (Tyson 3). America used to have the top space program in the world. Being first to the moon excited the country and gave everyone a sense of pride and fulfillment. Lately, though, we have been falling behind in space exploration. A successful space program is needed in America, and here’s why: we are losing our grip on the title as the world superpower and a new age of economics and politics is coming faster than we are prepared for. To be prepared for this new age we need the funds,
The National Space Policy has undergone changes throughout its new creation on August 31, 2006, under both the Obama administration and the Bush administration. The act originally was established for overarching national policies that governed the conduct of U.S space activities. President Dwight Eisenhower said “More than by any other imaginative concept, the mind of man is aroused by the thought of exploring the mysteries of outer space. Through such exploration, man hopes to broaden his horizons, add to his knowledge, improve his way of living on Earth.” With that statement, is where our time in space begins.
Carl Sagan once said “every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring--not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive... If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds.” The National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA, is executing Sagan’s words every day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower created NASA in 1958 with the purpose of peaceful rather than military space exploration and research to contribute to society. Just 11 years after the creation, NASA put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon, the first humans to accomplish this feat. NASA’s research and innovation looked promising but it came at a cost. Money, resources, and spacecraft accidents most famously Apollo 13 all hindered NASA’s research. In the 21st century the debate between funding for NASA is at its peak since the birth of the organization in 1958 especially when there are numerous problems throughout the world. Is the money spent on space exploration worth the advantages and advances it contributes to society?
The federal government of the United States of America is in charge of regulation and supervision of citizens. When it comes to regulation of the economy, the government can either intervene or let the market fluctuate based upon natural forces. I believe that the government should use a laisse-faire method in the economy. One of the greatest aspects of an open market is the use of competition. This causes an overall lowering of prices and a rapid increase of advances in every sector of the market. With government intervention, the U.S. gets a regulation of market with the addition of low competition, a monopoly on services, and less power of the customers. Customers of the market have the ability to change how corporations target their brand
The main argument against space travel is that the money used could be better put on other matters. This is, in fact, very untrue. Looking at NASA’s 2015 budget of $17.5 billion, it may seem like a lot, until you realize that the US military budget for 2014 was $581 billion (5). Furthermore, it was estimated that each dollar in NASA’s budget was equivalent to 8 – 10 dollars of economic benefit (6). If an organization can bring about economic value at 10 folds the original budget, it would be logical to continue funding it, if not increasing the funds.
In America, space travel is a controversial issue that many discuss. Although exciting, some people find it unnecessary and a waste of money. There are also many risks associated with space travel and many issues are more important than space travel that should be focused on. There are ethical, diplomatic, and economic issues that need to be considered before making decisions about space exploration.
Mankind has always been fascinated with exploring the unknown. From sailing to distant lands to someday setting foot on other planets, the spirit of exploration is the same. Bur now with the current economic situation and the high cost of sending people to space, NASA is being looked at as a way to free up some much needed funds. Although, there is many problems here on planet Earth that need addressing, the benefits of space exploration far out weight the disadvantages. Space exploration has given us more advanced technology, advances in the medical field, and a boost to the economy and these facts cannot be disputed.
Ever since the dawn of time, curiosity has driven mankind into the intriguing revolution of technology. Beginning with simple, fire-starting techniques by use of stick and stone and advancing into complex, space-exploring odysseys, civilization has created endless scientific and technological discoveries. By looking at this developmental progress, one can notice that culture as a whole has been and will continue to be affected by technology. In an era where this kind of change is rapidly increasing, there are those who are afraid of its power. But do these concerns outweigh the amount of positive influence that ever-evolving industrial science brings?