I wrote a paper about this in tenth grade twelfth grade. lemme just see if I ca-
The continuation of government funding for space exploration would be beneficial towards the amelioration of modern society as a whole. The exploration of the universe and the theoretical omniverse is a necessary stepping stone towards gaining a basic understanding of life. Being that it is extremely likely that the known universe contains life other than that of which is found within the Solar System, space exploration would lead to the discovery of new life and new civilizations. Even if a significant discovery of life outside of the Solar System is not found, terraforming and establishing civilizations on other planets would allow for the unlimited expansion of society. In nearly every example of space exploration, the cost has been more than paid for by stimulus provided by space exploration companies such as NASA. Innumerable sums of technological innovation have come of space exploration; many medicine, communication, and transportation-based benefits can be attributed to developments and advancements in space exploration. Funding directed towards NASA and other companies associated with space exploration also have a positive economic impact, in that it promotes a fair amount of steady, skilled employment, sees increases in sales and benefits, and brings in a great deal of federal corporate income tax.
We have come extraordinarily close to discovering life outside of Earth in the past decade, however further research has been slowed by the stark amount of government funding towards NASA. Life is speculated to even exist as close to Earth as on Jupiter's frozen moon, Europa. Europa is a good-sized moon, close to the size of Earth's, which is completely covered in ice. However, “below [Europa's] icy crust a liquid water ocean is thought to exist, containing not only the necessary ingredients for life, but, according to scientists, potentially complex organisms” (O'Neill). The notion of Europa's containing life is particularly exciting because it insinuates the idea that if life does exist in Europa's vast oceans then life not only exists outside of Earth, but it sprang up wherever it could. The discovery of life outside of Earth could result in much technological and economic advancement to modern society. If, for example, a planet with intelligent life is discovered, we could establish trade with its peoples. Discoveries such as this are currently a fantasy, however, due to severe reductions in government funding to companies like NASA, "Last year, NASA's budget was hit by a 20 percent reduction in funding for the planetary sciences. The primary focus, and therefore a chunk of the planetary science budget, is committed to the Mars Program” (O'Neill). And while the continued study of Mars as a potential past-inhabited planet still holds ground as being an important facility of research, it is important to note that most great discoveries were not made by staying in one place.
By continuing the exploration of space it is safe to assume that we should soon discover new natural resources that could be used to our technological advantage. For example “in 1985 [it was] discovered that lunar soil contained significant quantities of a remarkable form of helium known as helium-3” (“Mining the Moon”). Helium-3, or He3, is remarkable in that it is “purportedly an ideal fuel for [nuclear] fusion reactors” however it is “almost unavailable on Earth” (Williams). It is by no means, then, reasonable to believe that other spectacular natural resources shouldn't be ascertained through the continued exploration of the universe. “Eventually [we will] start mining from space rocks such as asteroids, meteors, comets and planets.” Furthermore, “The minerals will help take pressure off the high demand on Earth['s natural resources]” (“Why Space Exploration is Worth it”).
In the not too distant future, space “will be the [only] place to turn to for colonization. After many years, Earth will not be able to accommodate the human race because of the exploding population” (“Why Space Exploration is Worth it”), but other planets will. Famed theoretical physicist, Stephen Hawking, says in an interview with Big Think: "'I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space,' Hawking tells Big Think. 'It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million.'” (“Stephen Hawking's Warning”). Colonization in space is not limited only to planets and moons; colonization of asteroids is also a feasible idea, one way of doing this “would be to turn the asteroid itself into a city. This would require a massive mining effort to hollow out the object's interior” (Harris 4).
Past space exploration has proven time and time again that new technological innovations often follow suit. “Things such as kidney dialysis and the new artificial heart have been based on technology found in space shuttles. Without this research, thousands of lives would have been lost” (“Why Space Exploration is Worth it”). From extremely important medical utilities, to everyday items space exploration has spawned more technological innovation than almost any other institution of scientific study. NASA is greatly responsible for the creation of many everyday things such as “memory foam”, “cordless tools”, and even “scratch-resistant lenses” (Conger). By limiting funding on space exploration the government is effectively limiting progress.
One might argue that the United States cannot afford to fund space exploration companies, such as NASA, when its trillions of dollars in debt. This would be a sound argument were it not for the fact that “NASA is only half a penny of every U.S. tax dollar” (McLain). And, in fact, that amount is projected to drop even further in years to come. “Since NASA's Cold War glory days, the budget has gone from 4.41% of the total budget in 1966, to less than 0.45% today” (Endre), but despite this significant decrease in funding, some people believe that NASA should be funded even less and even then some think that NASA should simply be shut down. If NASA were to be shut down “over 17,000 NASA employees would lose their jobs, and many times that number of contractors and scientists would also be seeking unemployment benefits. NASA also has 10 field centers that would be shut down, causing economic catastrophe in their host communities. We would also lose funded research in practical applications, such as predicting the next super magnetic storms that can render our cell phones silent and destroy our power plants” (“Is NASA Worth the Cost?”). One argument pertaining to the safety of space exploration is that “currently, the risks of manned spaceflights are only increasing as budgets are being cut back and safety and quality-assurance programs are trimmed back” (Alexander). No truer a statement has ever been made in the history of scientific arguments; yes, it is true that because of budget cuts manned space exploration has become exceedingly dangerous, all the more reason to more greatly fund NASA and other companies apropos of space exploration. The advancement of civilization as a whole depends greatly upon all forms of scientific study, however none more so than that of space exploration. Through increased government funding, space exploration will be the harbinger of a new era of scientific advancements and technologies.
oh there it is
Poll