December 29, 2021
Next year, NASA will receive what NASA administrator Bill Nelson described as, “the largest budget request for NASA science, ever.”[i] It will top more than $24.8B, a markedly high increase from 2020’s fiscal year budget of $22.6B. This figure, however, comprises less than 1% of the total budget of the federal government. Although NASA makes up an almost negligible proportion of the federal budget, it is certainly not “spare change.” While I believe investing in the agency is valuable for numerous reasons, I understand the criticisms concerning whether the agency should continue to receive so much of American taxpayers’ money and applaud them as a feedback mechanism. Still, I believe the benefits for NASA’s space exploration (excluding private companies such as Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin or Elon Musk’s SpaceX) are substantial and include new technologies and medicine for us on Earth, as well as soft benefits such as cultural contributions, inspiration, and science outreach.
To the best of my knowledge, the two most common criticisms of the space program can be boiled down to costs and ethics. Those concerned with ethics believe space exploration is a waste, and that the funding and energy directed toward it would be better spent improving the conditions on Earth both environmentally (which would incidentally reduce space debris) and socially (solving hunger, poverty, etc.). Even Martin Luther King Jr. has said that “Without denying the value of scientific endeavor, there is a striking absurdity in committing billions to reach the moon where no people live, while only a fraction of that amount is appropriated to service the densely populated slums.”[ii]
Certainly, a discussion of NASA’s value is a deserving conversation. However, I would ask the same question that Matthew S. Williams did in his opinion piece on the cost and benefits of space exploration: “How do you put a dollar value on scientific knowledge, inspiration, or the expansion of our frontiers?”[iii] Perhaps a way to visualize the cost of space exploration is in the context of other programs that American taxpayers pay for. As stated before, NASA’s budget for the 2022 fiscal year will total $24.8B, which makes up less than 1% of the total annual budget. Social Security, Medicare, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) accounts for 65%. Medicare will be $995.7B, which is almost forty-times greater than NASA’s budget. While this is not to take away from the benefits Medicare, Social Security, and SNAP give to the common American people, NASA spending is negligible in comparison. These innovations will be elaborated upon in a later section, but socioeconomic benefits range from huge business growth to new jobs and international collaborations. NASA reported $64.3B in total economic output during fiscal year 2019, supported more than 312,000 jobs nationwide, and generated an estimated $7B in federal, state, and local taxes throughout the United States. In a way, NASA has found ways to earn the American people “their money back,” excluding indirect benefits from its technology spin-offs and social gain.[iv]
The most direct and supposed “selfish” benefit NASA brings to us on Earth is the new spin-off technologies and medicines its endeavors generate. NASA spin-off technologies refer to technologies developed at NASA “that benefit life on Earth in the form of commercial products.” The 2012 spin-off, almost a decade ago, outlines innovations in numerous sectors, including health and medicine, transportation, public safety, consumer goods, environment, information technology, and industrial productivity. Examples of these benefits in the health and medicine category alone include water treatment advancements for healthier beverages, development for hospital robots (now widespread in hospitals nationwide), remote health monitoring advancements, eye surgery speed and accuracy improvements, and lower-cost MRI scans. In 2012 alone, NASA estimated that its innovations saved 444,000 lives solely based on a new emergency communication system, created 14,000 jobs, generated $5B revenue, and reduced costs by even more, at $6.2B.[v] For example, the agency saw a 50% reduction in maintenance costs using PURETi (water-based photocatalytic surface treatments company). These do not include NASA’s historical developments in GPS technologies, weather forecasting, and artificial satellite technology that we rely on every day. Lesser-known innovations are still just as important, as they drive improvements for other systems and services, which provides similar technologies on Earth with better performance and lower costs. As of 2021, its portfolio includes over 1,200 patented technologies, hundreds of innovations in public domain, and more than 700 software programs.[vi]
These innovations not only bring tangible benefit to many Americans but motivate many young people to pursue careers in STEM.[vii] Even renowned scientists draw inspiration from the agency, as a 2009 study showed that fifty percent of those who published articles in Nature, a prestigious and high-ranking research journal, were inspired by the Apollo program to become scientists. In addition, 89% of respondents agreed human spaceflight inspires younger generations to explore science.[viii],[ix] These soft benefits go even further. Knowing more about space and the origin of the universe is fundamentally valuable to all of mankind and the human spirit. As the final frontier, space remains one of the most – if not the most – unknown regions to date. Our natural curiosity would be stunted if we were to hamper space exploration, leading to what I believe would be a “desire-less society.” Space exploration is unique in this regard because its absence would be socially detrimental, even if technologically it would not be. This is because it is one of the few truly global programs, tearing down borders between countries. I believe it is a catalyst for improving communication between even the most opposed political enemies and developing trust internationally.
Socially, NASA is sometimes criticized, since people believe its funding would be best used elsewhere. However, should that money be used to directly benefit others, such as impoverished Americans? How tangible would those benefits be? And who is to say that NASA cannot benefit the “common people?” I understand MLK’s statement that although science is important, it indeed seems ironic to spend so much on space, where no one lives. I believe that MLK’s position was formed at a time in which NASA’s budget was at an all-time high at around the 1960s, where in 1965 it peaked at more than 4% of the entire budget, which nowadays is roughly halved.[x] How socially acceptable NASA’s motivations were could also have played a role, because at that time their purpose was toward the space race against the Soviet Union. Nowadays, there is no need for furthering our national prestige and “winning” a competition. More importantly, I believe these endeavors are not mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the way to bring people from poverty (and thereby solve hunger) is by allowing those Americans to climb the social ladder. This comes, most importantly, from education. I cannot think of a better institution that inspires young Americans to pursue careers in science and further their education than NASA. On the other hand, many argue programs like universal basic income (UBI) would be a better option, since it directly focuses on reducing poverty rather than that reduction being a byproduct of a larger goal, such as the case with NASA. However, if everyone were to get a non-trivial sum of money (around $900 a month, the bare minimum to outright eliminate poverty), it would cost somewhere around $3T. When you consider this is a conservative estimate for the most moderate UBI program[xi], NASA’s budget of a mere $24.8B seems insignificant. For reference, $25B is 0.83% of $3T. Considering the benefits that NASA brings to many Americans, and that it sometimes “pays for itself,” it seems irresponsible to take money from NASA rather than other expenditures. Furthermore, I believe in terms of equity, NASA is a front runner in that department, hoping to land the first person of color and woman on the moon. The soft benefits and inspiration that it can lend to all Americans will be immense as space becomes more accessible.
The benefits of, at the very least, maintaining the funds for NASA, regardless of how intangible some of their projects or studies may seem, have material consequences and are a far greater return on the initial investment. And, when we account for the soft benefits, I believe we can all agree with the sentiment described by the late Carl Sagan when he said, “We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew with undiminished wonder: What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars…”[xii]
[i] Weitering, Hanneke. “Biden’s 2022 NASA Budget Proposal Gives Science and Commercial Space a Boost.” Space.com, May 28, 2021. https://www.space.com/biden-nasa-2022-budget-request-science-artemis.
[ii] “Martin Luther King and Economic Justice, 1966.” Accessed November 30, 2021. https://college.cengage.com/history/ayers_primary_sources/king_justice_1966.htm.
[iii] MacLeish, Marlene Y.; Akinyede, Joseph O.; Goswami, Nandu; Thomson, William A. (November 1, 2012). “Global partnerships: Expanding the frontiers of space exploration education”. Acta Astronautica. 80: 190–196. Bibcode:2012AcAau..80..190M. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.05.034. ISSN 0094-5765.
[iv] “FY2022 Budget Request.” NASA. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy2022_budget_summary.pdf
[v] “Spinoff Archives | NASA Spinoff 2012.” Accessed November 15, 2021. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2012/pdf/Spinoff2012.pdf
[vi] “Spinoff Archives | NASA Spinoff 2021.” Accessed November 15, 2021. https://spinoff.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/NASA_Spinoff__2021.pdf
[vii] “NASA Socio-Economic Impacts.” April 2013. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/SEINSI.pdf
[viii] Nature 460, 314‐315 (2009); www.nature.com/news/2009/090715/full/460314a.html.
[ix] “Benefits Stemming from Space Exploration.” September 2013. Accessed November 15, 2021 https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Benefits-Stemming-from-Space-Exploration-2013-TAGGED.pdf
[x] Rogers, Simon. “Nasa Budgets: US Spending on Space Travel since 1958 UPDATED.” the Guardian, February 1, 2010. http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel.
[xi] INSEAD Knowledge. “Why Universal Basic Income Should Be President Biden’s Top Priority,” January 19, 2021. https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/why-universal-basic-income-should-be-president-bidens-top-priority-15926.
[xii] Sagan, Carl. Cosmos , Random House, New York City, NY, 1980, p. 193.
Image Credits: SpaceX
Policy & Political Review 