Should America Continue Manned Space Flight?

Introduction

In an act that marked one of the crowning technological achievements of the 20th century, if not of all human history, American Neil Armstrong on July 20, 1969 became the first person ever to step onto the surface of the moon, which is some 239,000 miles from the Earth. Although small in distance terms when compared with the span of the universe, the journey by Armstrong and the rest of his crew was, as Armstrong said, "a giant leap for mankind" on several different levels.

The lunar landing sparked Americans' imagination of what the nation's next steps into space might be nothing seemed impossible. However, dreams of lunar cities and family vacations to Mars have not yet become reality and are unlikely to materialize any time soon. In the decades following the U.S.'s mission to the moon, many policy makers have had second thoughts about space exploration and its practical applications. Although the U.S. continues to invest in its space program, directed under the auspices of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), many people now argue that the program should be scaled back or even abandoned.

Taxpayers pay billions of dollars each year to fund NASA projects, but even NASA's administrator, Dan Goldin, admits that his agency has done a poor job of explaining the importance of space science to the public. Critics say that while landing men on the moon and other achievements of NASA may be technological marvels, the practical returns from the space program are minuscule compared to its immense costs. According to a Gallup poll conducted in 1994, the 25th anniversary of the first manned lunar landing, Americans are divided on the issue. Some 47% of those interviewed said that the U.S. space program has brought enough benefits to justify its cost, while the same number said it has not.

Opponents of NASA believe that its funds should be used for other priorities, such as reducing the federal budget deficit or helping the poor. America should not spend billions trying to conquer space, they say, when there are still many domestic problems that need to be solved first. Although few critics want to see NASA completely eliminated, many people, including scientists within NASA itself, say that the agency needs to focus more heavily on science projects that are cost-efficient and that have discernible short-term benefits.

A large portion of NASA's funding currently goes to two major projects, the space shuttle program and the development of an international space station, a proposed space laboratory that would orbit 240 miles above the Earth by the year 2002. NASA and other supporters of the space program justify these projects and other undertakings as worthwhile enterprises that will expand humanity's understanding of the Earth and break new ground in space science. They also contend that NASA's investments help to maintain America's competitive lead in the development of new technologies--advances that they say have practical benefits in fields as diverse as medicine, laser science, and defense and satellite ...