the lost frontier
DESCRIPTION
Past Lessons and Future Prospects - By Daniel Fahey and Madison ReidTRANSCRIPT
THE LOST FRONTIER 1
The Lost Frontier
Past Lessons and Future Prospects
The Lost Frontier
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-‐NonCommercial-‐NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-‐nc-‐nd/3.0/.
PUBLICATION NAME HERE • DECEMBER 2012 2
J ULY 21, 1969, NEIL ARMSTRONG STOOD ON THE MOON AND SAID, “THAT’S ONE SMALL STEP FOR [A] MAN, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND.” For decades these words have resonated across the globe as a symbol of the incredible capabilities of the human species. But this was another time: one of inspiration and exploration. We have abandoned courage and progress for balancing budgets and consuming resources. Much of our modern society has lost interest in space exploration. Many forget that space exploration has led to some of the most profound discoveries in science, and some of the most culturally influential events in history. This current state of apathy must be addressed. To do so, we need to understand the basis of this common public sentiment, why these views have become prevalent, and potential future avenues to align the international system with values that lead to development rather than debt.
TESTING THE WATERS – PUBLIC OPINION
In general, the public thinks that while space exploration is interesting and sometimes exciting, it is not deemed to be a priority when set against other issues. And when it comes to specific missions, knowledge is partial and often inaccurate. When compared to the glory days of the Space Race, it seems as though support for space exploration is fading. Analysis of data from the US’ General Social Survey from 1973 to 2010 found that those who support space activities tend to be “younger, male, Republican, and have a higher level of education and socioeconomic status”1. This represents quite a small proportion of the American population. Research in the US conducted in 20062 found that large numbers of the public were not at all interested in space. For example, it suggested that among young people (aged 18-‐24), less than a third are generally positive about space exploration. Even among the ‘Apollo generation’ there is only an 18% support for a human mission to Mars. Most candidly, the research showed 72% of young people believe NASA’s budget would be better spent elsewhere.
Meanwhile, teenagers in England were surveyed in 20063. When asked to list
space exploration organizations, 77% mentioned NASA. In stark contrast, less than 0.5% listed the European Space Agency (ESA), which garnered only one more response than Area 51! Perhaps the relative obscurity of ESA is simply a result of the US’ global cultural influence aided by the Internet and movies, but it clearly leaves much to be desired with regards to ESA’s public outreach and publicity program. Overall, support for space exploration in North America and Europe is broad, but shallow4.
THE GLORY DAYS – THE SPACE RACE The Space Race, from 1957 to 1975,
was fuelled by the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States (US)5. It was a truly amazing period of development. The underlying cause of the Space Race was the long lasting hostility between these two superpowers of the twentieth century, and their associated allies, known as the Cold War. The Cold War, beginning in the late 1940s, was a period of sustained political tension, with serious potential military repercussions for all actors involved5. Both the US and the Soviet Union were in possession of nuclear weapons, and
BY DANIEL FAHEY AND MADISON REID
THE LOST FRONTIER 3
therefore a military strike by either nation would likely result in the demise of both – mutually assured destruction. As this feud continued to escalate, both nations sought technological advantages, as they represented ideological superiority and were seen as necessary for national security. The ideal analogue for superiority was radical space exploration5. Although the motives for the Space Race were political, it led to both social and scientific benefits. Some of the major accomplishments of the Space Race include the first artificial satellites in space and the first humans in space5. The list of scientific advancements attributable to the Space Race is almost endless, varying from an increased understanding of human physiology to support of environmental sciences and awareness6.
THEN TO NOW – THE DECLINE
Following the Space Race, there were several catastrophic events that lead to the decline of space programs, particularly in the US. The Apollo mission series began in tragedy with Apollo 1 in 1967. During a test launch, a cabin fire killed all three crewmembers; Virgil Grissom, Edward White, and Roger Chaffee. The political fallout of this event resulted in several investigations and a program recovery campaign in attempt to reboot the attitude at NASA and improve public opinion7. A speech given by Gene Kranz, then acting flight director at NASA, has become one of NASA’s principles:
“From this day forward, Flight Control will be known by two words: Tough and Competent. Tough means we are forever accountable for what we do or what we fail to do. We will never again compromise our responsibilities...Competent means we will never take anything for granted... Mission
Control will be perfect. When you leave this meeting today you will go to your office and the first thing you will do there is to write Tough and Competent on your blackboards. It will never be erased. Each day when you enter the room, these words will remind you of the price paid by Grissom, White, and Chaffee. These words are the price of admission to the ranks of Mission Control.”
The Apollo 1 disaster had serious public and political consequences for NASA, and funding cutbacks were drastic (figure 18). Another major event that lead to cutbacks was the failure of the Apollo 13 mission in 1970. The mission was to land on the moon, but the landing was cancelled due the explosion of an oxygen tank two days after the vessel’s launch from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. This failure sparked considerable public disapproval in NASA9. The lack of public approval ultimately led to decreased NASA funding in the federal budget.
The next major failure faced was in 1986: the Challenger disaster. Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated just seconds after lift-‐off, due to a failed O-‐ring seal, resulting in the death of all seven crew members: Francis Scobee, Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ronald McNair, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe. The Challenger disaster was a particularly damaging tragedy for NASA, because a focus of the mission was public relations10. The Challenger was the first of the Space Shuttle missions to carry a civilian: Christa McAuliffe, a schoolteacher from New Hampshire who was selected from more than 11’000 applicants to participate in the NASA Teacher in Space Project, which was subsequently cancelled. The Titan and Delta rocket programs were also cancelled after
PUBLICATION NAME HERE • DECEMBER 2012 4
Apollo 1 Disaster, 1967
Apollo 13 Complications, 1970
Space Shuttle Challenger Crash, 1986
Space Shuttle Columbia Crash, 2003
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
4.00%
4.50%
5.00%
1958 1968 1978 1988 1998 2008
% of Budget
Year
Percentage of US Federal Budget towards NASA funding from 1958 to 2012
Figure 1: The budget of NASA changes with relation to specific negative events in the organizations history. Notice that after all of the events, the budget decreases due to the effect of decreased public and political support.
Rest of the World
Next 11
Brazil, Russia, India, and China
Europe and Canada
Japan
USA
1.3%
1.9%
10.3%
15.7%
3.8%
67.0%
1.3%
2.8%
28.1%
10.8%
2.5%
54.5%
Present and Projected Global Space Budget Distribution
Projected 2030 contribution to global space budget
Present contribution to global space budget
Figure 2: The projected change in distribution of global space exploration shows increasing contributions of Brazil, Russia, India and China and the ‘Next 11’ (Mexico, Nigeria, Egypt, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Vietnam, South Korea, and the Philippines). Decreasing contributions are expected from Europe, Canada, Japan, and most noticeably the United States.
THE LOST FRONTIER 5
the disaster. There were several public relations campaigns leading up to the mission, which were indeed quite successful11. With this public focus and emotional investment in the mission and crew, the disaster could not have been more harmful to NASA budgets and public trust (figure 1).
Several decades later, in 2003, NASA’s space shuttle program took another hit when Space Shuttle Columbia crashed upon re-‐entry, again resulting in the death of all seven crew members: Rick Husband, William McCool, David Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Michael Anderson, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon. By this point, public and political support was extremely low, resulting in the cancellation of the Space Shuttle Program12. The accidents following the Apollo 1 disaster bring criticism to the seriousness of Kranz’s principle in the NASA community. Many critics of NASA say the organization is not interested in seriously changing the prevailing attitudes, as in many cases they fail to meet the principle described by Kranz9. This is because NASA knew many of the technical issues that led to tragedy prior to launch, but the organization moved forward with missions regardless. Supporters of NASA argue that these technical flaws are due to an unacceptable lack of funding, forcing NASA to compromise the safety of their crews13.
FOLLOW THE MONEY – THE CURRENT BUDGET SITUATION
In 1966, when the Apollo program was in full swing, NASA’s budget reached 4.4% of the US federal budget. This was almost nine times the current budget of 0.5%. In 2004, President Bush presented the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) in response to the Columbia disaster. The
ambitious VSE, intended to succeed the Shuttle Program, included the Constellation Program (CxP). The goal of CxP was to send astronauts first to the International Space Station as soon as possible, then to the Moon in the 2020s, and finally to Mars in the 2030s.
By 2009 however, the Augustine Report commissioned by the Obama administration found VSE to be financially unsustainable within the current NASA budget. Although the report recommended an extra $3 billion per year for five years to restore CxP to health, the required political support from either the Democrats or Republicans was lacking and CxP was dropped. It was hardly surprising given the budgetary strain faced by the US in recent years, with stimulus packages, bailouts, and increased national security costs. Indeed, the financial crisis of 2008-‐2009, and ensuing economic downturn has had global impacts. Similar woes have confronted government budgets in Europe, which have shrunk in response to revenue-‐generation problems and the requirement to service sovereign debts incurred during the crisis. For example a project of the European Space Agency (ESA) for Mars exploration, ExoMars, is now limited to a smaller mission in collaboration with NASA.
It appears that space exploration spending levels on par with those during the Cold War are no longer viable. Space programs represent highly expensive projects, whose benefits are poorly understood by the public. Bold steps in space exploration, such as human spaceflight beyond low-‐Earth-‐orbit present few immediate returns for private companies. Such steps would require massive costs beyond what private industry can provide
PUBLICATION NAME HERE • DECEMBER 2012 6
The crew of Space Shuttle Challenger (from left to right): Ellison Onizuka, Michael Smith, Christa McAuliffe, Francis Scobee, Gregory Jarvis, Ronald McNair, and Judith Resnik. All seven individuals died in the fatal disaster on February 3rd, 198614.
THE LOST FRONTIER 7
The plume of smoke left after by the destruction of Space Shuttle Challenger15.
PUBLICATION NAME HERE • DECEMBER 2012 8
while maintaining profitability within a business timescale. For the foreseeable future, such bold exploration will only be achievable through substantial international cooperation between committed nations.
A CALL FOR CHANGE – GLOBAL TRANS-‐CULTURAL QUEST AND THE BLUE MARBLE
In May 2010 after a workshop held in Vienna organized by the European Space Policy Institute, a group of space explorers made a statement. It was later published in the respected journal Space Policy. They called upon decision makers “to regard human space exploration as a global trans-‐cultural quest that should be supported and furthered”16. The group, composed of Russian cosmonauts as well as American, Canadian, and Japanese astronauts, made a compelling case. They note that while nations have many different reasons to go to outer space, a thread of commonalities exist despite diverse cultural backgrounds. They argue that this diversity furthers the case for international cooperation in human space exploration. The success of the Apollo 11 mission transcended the US’ borders, it was a global event.
The group argues that the concept of “exploration” is ubiquitous across humanity: it can be seen as an inherent human motivation, a drive to expand our knowledge, capabilities and experiences. Exploration is the search for the unknown, without a specific question being asked. It is both contrasted, and complemented by science, which seeks specific answers for defined questions. Exploration therefore, appeals to the emotional aspects of the pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, the question these astronauts and cosmonauts are most frequently asked after they return to Earth is: “What was it like to be in space?” Further
they make the distinction between passive observation and active exploration, arguing that telescopes only allow observation and robotic exploration only allows limited interaction. They call for human space exploration to go beyond simply being a means to encourage technological development.
This vision is echoed by Sanjoy Som, a NASA astrobiologist, and founder of Blue Marble Space (a non-‐profit organization dedicated to promoting international unity through space exploration). He proposes the adoption of an international symbol to be used by future space explorers: the Blue Marble Flag.
He emphasizes the need for international unity in space, and for international space exploration to be a political endeavour whereby “human peace, international awareness, and sustainability could help steer our world toward a more hopeful future”17. It is easy to dismiss such notions as naive, but it is not difficult to imagine the effect a human landing on the Mars would have on the global media. Som believes that such a success, in combination with new media technology, would have social impacts an order of magnitude greater than the Apollo 11 landing.
In a century where humanity is expected to face a variety of ‘megaproblems’ such as climate change, projects aiding international co-‐operation are desperately needed. Lacking national borders, space presents a unique arena for such initiatives. Perhaps the ‘global trans-‐cultural quest’ can fill this void in international relations and science.
THE LOST FRONTIER 9
The crew of Apollo 17 took this image, the Blue Marble, on December 7, 1972. It was the first picture taken by a human of the planet Earth, during the last manned lunar mission. It has been implicated in catalyzing environmental activism from the 1970s onwards and is thought to be the most widely distributed image in history.
PUBLICATION NAME HERE • DECEMBER 2012 10
PEOPLE MATTER – PUBLIC AWARENESS AND ENGAGEMENT
Amy Paige Kaminski is senior policy advisor to the Chief Scientist at NASA. She previously served as a NASA program examiner at the Office of Program and Budget and is currently a Ph.D. candidate in Science and Technology Studies at Virginia Tech.
She notes that NASA, as the major force behind US space exploration, is shaped by the interests of a relatively small network of elite stakeholders. This network includes politicians, scientists, and private corporations. Politicians may be involved in maintaining global US leadership in space, technology, and science, but they are also engaged in seeking the approval of their constituents -‐ necessary if they desire re-‐election. Scientists are interested in knowledge, but also seek professional success. Private corporations, meanwhile, are motivated by profit, yet often have the technical abilities needed to make spaceflight a reality.
Kaminski identifies that the active participation of a critical part of society is missing from this network of stakeholders; the general American public who lack vested financial or professional interests in NASA. Indeed, NASA has rarely consulted those without a direct stake in its endeavours. Leaving aside for a moment individuals and advocacy groups, who have only had limited success influencing space policy, citizen involvement remains on the whole limited to tax contributions and the election of politicians who may (or may not) make these decisions on their constituents’ behalf. The advocacy groups meanwhile, many of which emerged from the grassroots in the 1970s have campaigned on many diverse issues,
such as for the human settlement of space, for a space program focused on Mars, or for opening space to free enterprise. Their memberships have however remained low, compared to environmental groups, and ultimately their influence marginal. Their diverse, incoherent motivations in the end lose out to economically powerful institutions able to lobby policy makers, particularly the aerospace industry and universities.
Arguing that space exploration needs to become a civic issue, Kaminski believes that citizens themselves need to be involved in space exploration and the policies surrounding it. Their involvement is to go beyond the occasional superficial opinion poll, for example. She suggests this will both invigorate space activities, and increase the approval of the public for those activities. It must be acknowledged, of course, that those elite stakeholders have never the less been at the forefront of space exploration for more than 50 years, and have had extraordinary success in achieving US space policy goals. Despite this success, civic involvement is now crucial, as these parties can no longer sustain further development.
Some examples of how the public could become involved include consensus conferences, citizens’ juries, and crowdsourcing. Consensus conferences and citizens’ juries have already been used in Europe and the USA, addressing air pollution for example. Around a dozen citizens may be selected by ballot, generally people with no specialist knowledge on the issue to be deliberated. The group would then engage with a diverse array of on-‐hand experts, and attempt to resolve the debate at hand. A consensus conference seeks to develop a consensus position among participants,
THE LOST FRONTIER 11
while a citizens’ jury may not expect consensus. Crowdsourcing uses recent developments of the Internet and social media, canvassing the public for ideas. NASA has performed some crowdsourcing, asking the public to propose novel solutions to specific problems. Other projects such as Galaxy Zoo, where online participants help classify galaxies according to their shapes, enable citizens to become involved in astrophysical research.
“A meaningful move toward public participation in space exploration policy development will require traditional space policy actors to reconceptualize what the public role in space exploration policy development should be and how it can work. It will necessitate a cultural shift on the part of NASA and traditional policy players, from considering the public to be an audience for the nation’s achievements in space in the hope it will appreciate them to considering service to society and the active involvement of citizens central to deciding the direction of the USA’s future in space.”18.
LOOKING FORWARD – FUTURE POSSIBILITIES
The future of space exploration is a difficult topic to accurately discuss, but is nonetheless important to consider. In recent years, there have been major changes in space programs, particularly in the US. To date, governments and government institutions have been the largest contributors to space exploration programs19. However, within the last few decades there has been a trend of increasing involvement of the private sector in space exploration20. Many do not realize that the commercialization of space technology has long been a reality, and is in fact essential to many of our daily luxuries. The first
commercial application of space was satellites, specifically the Telstar 1 satellite, launched in 1962. Considering the first satellite ever launched, Sputnik 1, was in 1957, privatization of space actually began quite rapidly. Today, billion use commercial satellites for navigation and communication systems, television, and radio1.
In more recent years, commercialization of space has been gaining more media attention, as there are more radical applications being explored. Some of the more notable corporate activities revolve around space tourism, which is space travel by civilians for recreation, leisure, or business21. One major company involved in space tourism is Space Adventures, the only private company to have taken civilians to space to date. The company boasts an impressive résumé, having launched seven civilians into space; the company also has a distinguished board of advisors with several former astronauts, including moonwalker Buzz Aldrin22. Other recent commercial space initiatives include the proliferation of space transportation companies. These companies derive their revenues from launching satellites for governments or other companies23.
Although the commercialization of space has had recent attention, is it really the future of space exploration? Recent events certainly indicate that commercialization will be playing a role in the decades to come. Some of the contributing factors include the recent commercialization of access to the International Space Station (ISS) by the Obama administration in the US, and the increasing number of space activities that are independent of government spending20. The underlying trend behind these developments is to open low-‐Earth orbit to
PUBLICATION NAME HERE • DECEMBER 2012 12
commercial activity. This would enable, for example, the re-‐supply of the ISS by private companies. Also important to consider is the aftermath of the 2008-‐2009 global financial crisis and the increasing international co-‐operation of space endeavours19. A recent study20 has taken all of these questions into account and has attempted to predict the future of the space economy (figure 2). Their most important findings are the projected decrease of US space activity and the increase of space activities in Brazil, Russia, India and China (also known as BRIC). This shift represents a fundamental change in the international dynamics of space exploration. In the words of American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton:
“We cannot go back to Cold War containment or to unilateralism… We will lead by inducing greater cooperation among a greater number of actors and reducing competition, tilting the balance away from a multi-‐polar world and toward a multi-‐partner world”20.
Commercialization and cooperation is the likely future of space exploration, but these new forms of development do not necessarily quench the desires of the public for inspiration, pride, and understanding. Both commercialization and cooperation have pros and cons, and neither can act as an independent problem to the social, economic and political issues surrounding space exploration. Private industry is capable of maintaining a steady stream of space activity, although these events often mundane and almost never provide meaningful development23. Another benefit of commercialization of space is that companies are ultimately responsible to their stockholders, and seek potential investors. As such, they must engage with the
public to attract investment. For this reason, many companies involved in space commercialization have public relations strategies that focus on educating and exciting the public about their mission statement. This being said, commercial activities lack several important characteristics that are necessary for true public appreciation and understanding. The first, and perhaps the most important, of these characteristics is democracy. For the public to feel a sense of involvement in space activities, they need to have some influence20. This echoes the call for participatory democracy in space exploration expressed by Amy Paige Kaminski. Non-‐shareholders do not feel a sense of ownership or belonging towards corporations, as they may have with their governments, especially in democracies. Governments also instil nationalistic pride and a sense of accomplishment in citizens when a nation overcomes a challenge. In addition, while privatized space industry may be accessible to any potential stockholders, power remains tilted toward those with the most shares, or those who can afford the services provided by the industry. As such, there is the potential for an expanding private space industry to be removed from the average person. International cooperation also has some difficulties. While unity certainly allows for the completion of larger scale and more inspiring projects, there are several pitfalls. The most notable of these are logistical issues. Trading information and personnel between different languages and cultures is no easy feat. Differing motivations between these cultures and nations will need to be overcome for successful cooperation.
THE LOST FRONTIER 13
IS THERE HOPE?
While we have seemingly lost the glamour and heroism of space exploration in the 1960s and 1970s, there is hope in the future. This hope is embodied in two processes: democratization and international cooperation of space exploration. As Kaminski argues, democratization of space exploration inherently enhances the legitimacy of budgets allocated to space activity. Meanwhile, international cooperation is promising, as it instils a sense of global progress and unity, which is perhaps one of the most important outcomes of space exploration. This is especially the case as we enter a century with many problems of a global scale requiring the united action of all the world’s nations. The current state of apathy will not be tolerated forever, as new opportunities are being met each day in the international arena.
REFERENCES
1. Whitman Cobb, W. N. Who’s supporting space activities? An ‘issue public’ for US space policy. Space Policy 27, 234–239 (2011).
2. Finarelli, P. & Pryke, I. Building and maintaining the constituency for long-‐term space exploration. Space Policy 23, 13–19 (2007).
3. Jones, H., Yeoman, K. & Cockell, C. A pilot survey of attitudes to space sciences and exploration among British school children. Space Policy 23, 20–23 (2007).
4. Brown, F. Space agencies and public outreach—must try harder. Space Policy 23, 1–2 (2007).
5. Institute of Historical Research The Cold War and the early space race. History in Focus (2006).at <http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/cold/articles/godwin.html>
6. Dunlap, R. E. Trends in public opinion toward environmental issues: 1965–1990. Society & Natural Resources 4, 285–312 (1991).
7. Kauffman, J. Adding fuel to the fire: NASA’s crisis communications regarding Apollo 1. Public Relations Review 25, 421–432 (1999).
8. NASA -‐ Budget Documents, Strategic Plans and Performance Reports. at
<http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html>
9. Launius, R. D. Planning the post-‐Apollo space program: Are there lessons for the present? Space Policy 28, 38–44 (2012).
10. Martin, R. M. & Boynton, L. A. From liftoff to landing: NASA’s crisis communications and resulting media coverage following the Challenger and Columbia tragedies. Public Relations Review 31, 253–261 (2005).
11. Rowland, R. C. The relationship between the public and the technical spheres of argument: A case study of the challenger seven disaster. Central States Speech Journal 37, 136–146 (1986).
12. Heiss, K. P. Some Thoughts on the Columbia Disaster and How to Proceed from Here. The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies 28, 389–422 (2003).
13. Steinberg, A. Space policy responsiveness: The relationship between public opinion and NASA funding. Space Policy 27, 240–246 (2011).
14. NASA Challenger flight 51-‐l crew. (1985).at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Challenger_flight_51-‐l_crew.jpg>
15. NASA Challenger explosion. (1986).at <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Challenger_explosion.jpg&oldid=509570533>
16. Avdeyev, S. et al. Human space exploration -‐-‐ A global trans-‐cultural quest. Space Policy 27, 24–26 (2011).
17. Som, S. An international symbol for the sustained exploration of space. Space Policy 26, 140–142 (2010).
18. Kaminski, A. P. Can the demos make a difference? Prospects for participatory democracy in shaping the future course of US space exploration. Space Policy 28, 225–233 (2012).
19. Jarritt, I., Peeters, W. & Simpson, M. Space financing in the aftermath of the financial crisis. Space Policy 26, 119–120 (2010).
20. Kessler, H. & Peeters, W. Man and space – The Isle of Man, the IISC and the new space economy. Space Policy 27, 222–226 (2011).
21. Smith, V. L. Space tourism: the 21st century ‘frontier’. Tourism Recreation Research 25, 5–15 (2000).
22. Space Adventures Delivering Spaceflight Experiences. (2012).at <http://www.spaceadventures.com/>
23. Twibell, T. S. Space Law: Legal Restraints on Commercialization and Development of Outer Space. UMKC L. Rev. 65, 589 (1996).