Space Research - is it worth it?

“That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind” - Neil Armstrong

In 1969, three brave American men, relying on the expertise and genius of thousands of other men and women, landed on the closest planetary-mass object and walked on the Moon.

When President J.F.Kennedy announced that the U.S. will land on the Moon, a lot of public opinions were against spending that much money towards space research when in fact, that money could be spent elsewhere on Earth. This remains to be a common reaction towards space research. So why do governments do it?

What's in it for Terrestrial Life?

Those who know me can share how I defend space research because I have come to learn and appreciate its value. That didn't happen overnight. I cannot be convinced of something simply because someone says so. Believe me, people tried but in order for me to agree or disagree, I need to first read and form an opinion. Eventually, with a little PhD to top it off, the more I read, the more it captivated me and today whenever I read or hear someone down shaming space research, I roll up my sleeves.

Bring it on!

I believe that to understand how space research shapes our lives, one has to go back to a time when space research was done in the shadows of military advancements. Recently I finished reading the book “The Telescope: A short history” by Richard Dunn which I bought during a vacation in Edinburgh. Richard explained how throughout its history, the justification for funding towards building a telescope that was designed to improve astronomical observations, had to be backed up by military uses.

However, I want to talk about another book. Charles Fishman wrote the book "One Giant Leap - the impossible mission that flew us to the moon", link here. It describes the political and social forces that motivated the mission, but more importantly, triggered what has become known as the Space Race. I highly encourage everyone to read it and I will be careful not to spoil anything.

When I bought the book, I expected a different kind of recollection. It turned out to teach me much more than I could have bargained for. For starters, the idea of going to the moon sparked when technology and civilization were still learning to co-exist. NASA had no idea how to begin to achieve that goal. Some theories that were thought to be useful, were quickly crossed out and others took their place, even those who have been criticised since their conception.

When one stops to think about what landing on the moon meant when NASA wasn't as structured as it would be during the late 1960s, it is impossible not to wonder. A most challenging task was assigned in an era that was nowhere near the current discoveries. Theories had to be tested, teams had to be managed and structured. Scientific breakthroughs had to conform with the requirements.

The race to land on the moon was motivated by a political goal but it could only succeed because the people involved in the mission understood that in space, there is no room for a mistake. On Earth, we may risk pushing a model in production and if it fails, develop another version later. A person may decide to paint a wall with some colour just to see how it looks knowing that they can change it later. How many faulty technologies did we buy and rely on our warranty because it is safe to do so? Well, space exploration is an entirely different world, literally.

I remember well my doctorate research. For those who remember how the old TVs were and they would get a lot of static in the picture. That static was similar to the problem I was researching. Specifically, how that static (noise) affects the actual measurements. Some might suggest removing each image that had such static, but my friend, otherwise I'd end up with few images or unrealistic scenarios. Moreover, the real data in space research is constantly influenced by these unwanted effects. Removing all inconvenient data is not an option, so instead, research continues to improve both instruments and theory. This is the power of space research.

Going to the moon meant walking into an unknown, unexplored space where should something go wrong, it meant lives lost in space. It meant that nobody would be able to go for rescue, no ambulance or technical support. Whatever the individuals built in the support of the mission had to be perfect, or to the point that it required little to no supervision. This included the computer which Charles referred to as the "Fourth Crew Member". It had the power to do everything automatically and decide which process to prioritise first. Sounds familiar? It had to be engineered that way to help the astronauts in their mission.

I admit I am biased, but in my defence, I believe space research is one of those fields whereby sticking to a method for a lifetime will limit the number of discoveries. Had Einstein stuck with Newton's definition of gravity, he wouldn't have come up with his own theory that powers our GPSs. There are so many spin-offs from space research that I will not talk about them but instead invite you to check them out from NASA's website or other reliable sources.

While I can go on about this, I want to talk about MONEY. When it comes to space research, the public has a problem with the money spent. Everyone is fascinated by space. Observing the universe and studying it is both exciting and romantic. People would jump the line to look through a telescope and some would also be fascinated with the discoveries brave scientists make every day. Individuals would claim their interest in space and following launches, but where money is involved, anything space-related is “a waste of resources” and that humanity should focus on “things that matter”.

At the time of the Apollo mission, the funding allocated for such a huge endeavour came about when revolutions and wars were erupting across the U.S. and surrounding countries. In his book, Charles discusses all these issues and how the U.S. administration had their hands full with everything so that, in a manner of speaking, there was no time or space for waste of resources. However, he continues to explain that when Congress approves of a sum of money allocated for health, poverty and space, they do not take from one and give to the other. Rather, as explained by Charles, the money for Apollo was allocated alongside the money that was budgeted for other priorities. Nevertheless, a particular comparison struck me in his declaration of facts: the American expenditure on Apollo against the expenditure on cigarettes and tobacco. I won’t share what the numbers are but people have a different definition of "priorities".

Through the Apollo Program, NASA helped shape the market for technological equipment and circuits that would later on determine our way of living. It also defined other aspects that integrated our society silently but deterministically. In the last chapters, Charles compares the Apollo mission with terrestrial problems such as poverty and climate change. He points out that in one mission, every person involved was determined towards its success, while the other, well not fully. NASA didn't know how to land on the moon, but when asked the goal was reached. On the other hand, people know how to fight climate change but there are those who do not want to put the effort or deny it completely. In other words, it is the people’s input that distinguishes one success from the lack of the other, and not funding space research as opposed to funding climate change research or otherwise.

Before I conclude, I want to address the following statement:

"Yes, but without space research, we would still have gotten that technology eventually".

For sure, YES! The human mind is wonderful like that but think of it this way. Say you discovered something amazing and got an award for the discovery. Two days later another person discovers the same thing without access to your discovery or progress. That means that the second discovery was done fully independently and unaware of any work you did. Should the award and recognition be taken away from you just because someone else eventually got there? If your answer is "but I was first!", I rest my case.