The two main technologies that are working towards cutting down the costs of space exploration are reusable rockets and the space elevator. Both of these ideas will cut down on the cost of getting payloads to orbit. The idea of reusable rockets means that space programs wouldn’t have to make new rockets for each launch. The idea of the space elevator would allow better payload efficiency and easier access to space, because it wouldn’t have to deal with fuel or the obstacle of gravity. Even though the space elevator may take more time than the more well known reusable rockets it is still the best way to cut down on costs of space exploration in the future. Although reusable rockets are the current preference for reduced costs, the space elevator …show more content…
The overall cost reduction of building a space elevator would far outweigh the possible negatives of not pursuing this project further. A space elevator can significantly cut the cost of getting a payload to orbit. Traditional rockets average twenty thousand dollars per kilogram of payload while a space elevator could cut it down to as little as ten dollars per kilogram of payload. This is a reduction of over 99.9%, and according to Edward C. Bradley, in “A Space Elevator Based Exploration Strategy,” a fully functioning space elevator could “have gross revenues of around $2.2B per year (based on 50% market capture).” Within 5 years the entire project could be reimbursed to the government and start providing money for NASA to do even more space research. With the massive cost reduction, almost every nation or company around the world could get a satellite for research, manufacturing or tourism. This would help boost the economy of the world and lead to easier space travel. The easier space travel would let scientists research our solar system and space much easier, leading to better technology for the human race to use. Better technology leads countries to finding more efficient ways for the space elevators and space travel in general. This would become never ending loop of improvement for the U.S. and the entire world. NASA …show more content…
The carbon nanotubes have yet to be used in long strands like this project would require. Along with this, the manufacturing price of these nanotubes is tremendously high; resulting in an estimated cost of ten billion dollars. That is roughly fifty-six percent of NASA’s budget in the 2015 year. In addition, Edward C. Bradley in, “The Space Elevator,” says that, “Hazards to the SE include winds, lightning and aircraft in the troposphere; atomic oxygen in the upper atmosphere; and radiation, solar storms, orbital debris, orbiting satellites and meteorites in the magnetosphere.” The carbon nanotubes may not be completely ready yet but with the advances that scientists have been making each year it is possible for the U.S. to start and finish work on the space elevator within ten to twenty years. These advancements would also lead to cheaper production costs, which would cut down drastically on the entire project's budget. Even if we can’t reduce the cost of the first space elevator, the ten billion dollars used in construction is significantly less than one percent of the U.S. government’s total budget in 2015 and it would be spread out over multiple years. The U.S. government has spent more time, money, and effort on less world changing things, such as politician’s paychecks, interest on our national debt, and the “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska. Bradley
NASA Funding The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was booming in the late 1960s 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.
At first, the HSR will be expensive and many people will be affected by it in a negative way, but eventually people will see the positive side. There will be a lot of construction causing headache for drivers and in the Central Valley farm workers may lose their job. After the HSR is up and running, the positive will start to show economically and environmentally. There will be many jobs in the station and business around as well the air quality will improve and less vehicle accidents will occur. Business individuals will be more able to get from one large city to another in less time than by driving or flying. The Firm should participate in the HSR project because the firm will benefit greatly. The project is estimated to be $64 billion, but the return is likely to double within the first five years of operations (HSR Business Plan, 2016). Also, after there has been a significant profit the Firm can then participate in the extension of the HSR toward Sacramento and San
Space exploration needs advancing scientific research, more machineries and equipments which means that it would cost us a lot of
Have you ever wondered what Earth was like without space exploration? In the story Leaving Main Street the author states, “The United States has more important things to spend money on.” On the other hand some people believe that successful space programs adds to our economy,national prestige,create jobs,and improves national security. We shouldn't spend valuable resources on space exploration, because we could end hunger and poverty.
would have to end up working with the Russians. “With our relations shaky with Russia, I don’t think that’d be the best idea” (Martin). There’s no telling how well Russian and American astronauts would get along together, not to mention what would have to be paid to Russia just to go into space. In reality there’s no point in paying Russia for what could be done by NASA itself. Plus, there’s no telling how the U.S. will know that Russia won’t take all the credit for any new discoveries made by American astronauts and scientists.To keep things easy and hasslefree, the government should fund NASA more and to keep interest alive in its programs alive. Besides, the government still would be shelling out money anyways, perhaps not as much, but what would be the point when NASA can do it with government help?
The Space Race began in or around the late-1950s, during the Cold War. The United States and Russia were both anxious to become the country to explore space. Unfortunately for the US, Russia launched the first artificial satellite and man-made object to orbit Earth, Sputnik. The launch of Sputnik surprised the United States, and we rushed to get our own space craft into space, and to beat Russia to anything else space related.
Is it worth expanding into outer space, when we still have so many other concerns, such as power and material resources? If we focus more on aerospace development, other technological improvements may evolve, such as more energy efficient engines. Many household or common appliances we use today are by-products of aeronautic research. If funding for space research were increased, the rate of developing new applications would also increase. The question is, are we ready and willing to take this next step in technology?
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 idea of an elevator into space is not a new one. First contemplated by a Russian scientist in 1895,
The materials to build a shuttle must be top tier materials. Every time a shuttle launches, some parts are damaged beyond repair and must be replaced. Fuel for a shuttle is also expensive. People must be paid to build the ship and must be paid to work ground control. These expenses, along with others, begin to add up quickly. NASA reported that their average launch costs $450 million (2015, Bray). These funds are being used to do scientific research to help society. Spending that much money just to see space seems ludicrous. However, as Greenberg points out in his cartoon, money has power. A study was done in 1980 to see how many were interested in space tourism. This study found that “over 40 million people would like to take a trip on a space shuttle, and some 55 million would like to take a cruise ship-like space trip” (2015, Chang). In 1994 it was projected that space tourism could bring in about $50 million annually (2015, Chang). Comparing $450 million to the projected intake of $50 million shows just how expensive it would be. $50 million is a large price tag for a suborbital
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.
Most people think that the costly downside to funding space exploration is a reason to avoid spending money on sciences and instead spend it on problems here on earth, but such funding for space exploration actually promotes economical as well as scientific benefits. Space exploration is an important expenditure for the high cost because of the potential for numerous benefits such as the possibility to find useful resources to cultivate, space exploration and satellites produce many thousands of jobs in our economy, and it creates and discovers newer and better technologies through research and development.
“Sheltered as we are by Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field, which deflect lethal radiation from space, we are like coddled children who have never ventured into a tough neighborhood” (Folger 2). Humans have been fascinated with space since the beginning of our time. Just like children and rough neighborhoods, we have tackled obstacle over obstacle to make it home again. In the end, we have a better knowledge and strength than before. The future of space exploration can assist us in answering the everlasting question of how the universe came to be. The more we explore the infinite galaxies, the more we can scientifically discover and create new technologies as science advances. As we continue to discover, we can create new fields and occupations for aspiring young students like myself.
Space exploration is very beneficial to humankind because it creates new technologies, it brings different countries together, and gives people a better understanding of our Earth.
Space has always been a pivotal and utmost important subject for many years. In the past, scientists have made monumental advances in this field such as sending people into orbit and landing a man on the moon. Of course, this has only barely been explored and we still have a lot more to see of the ever-vast outer space. One of the most significant topics of all of science has only been touched and there’s still more to come.