WHY WE SHOULD KEEP GOING TO SPACE

On 25th December 2021, NASA launched James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to study exoplanets and our outer solar systems. This program took 35 years and $10 billion to develop, and it will be operational for ten years. This thing is going to unfold itself into that hexagonal thing about 1.5 million kilometres away, isn’t it crazy!

Also, in September 2021, SpaceX launched the Inspiration4, where four non-astronauts went to space for two days. During this time, there was a record of the maximum number of people in space simultaneously, that is 16. Yes, 7.5 Billion on the Earth and 16 people in space. Space flights are long-term projects and capital intensive. These are generally funded by taxpayers money, and lately, we are seeing more inflow of private capital in the industry. But we have so many problems on Earth, is it wise to invest taxpayers money in these projects? How about diverting that capital to eliminate poverty? Let’s try to answer some of these questions.

A WAR WITH SPACE

Crisis comes from the Latin word krinein, which means decide. So humans are at a crossroads during a crisis; they need to decide whether to adapt to new changes or succumb to the crisis. During the COVID-19 crisis, humans collectively decided to embrace online methods to keep the economy running. Crises like World-Wars pushed scientists to the edge to invent new things. The Cold War led to technologies like the Internet, which changed the world. So it is unfortunate, yet humans always need a crisis to change, adapt and innovate. But we can’t always have wars or pandemics to innovate. So we can be at war with space without committing atrocities to the human population. Our opponent's (SPACE) strengths are no gravity, vastness, and it gives no second chance; it is the whole package. But our advancement in rocket science and aerospace engineering enables us to tackle all these problems. These advancements helped propel innovation in other sectors like high-grade manufacturing materials, miniaturisation of technology etc. No human lives are harmed except tragic missions like Apollo 1 and the Columbia space shuttle programs. But atrocities of war and losses from pandemic outbreaks are incalculable, so it is better to be at war with space to keep the innovation wheel running.

ARE WE PAYING RENT TO ALIENS WITH THE MONEY?

NO. All this money go to real people and business. For instance, NASA’s Artemis program to build a lunar base has eight vendors and it is an international collaboration effort. Not only do these companies require rocket scientists, but they also require accountants, janitors, and engineers from multiple fields. Also, these companies have vendors with their own corporate structure. So funding space programs is an excellent way of trickling money to many businesses. We have created an artificial job demand to take advantage of our world's Z-axis. 

Space research helped us in our technological advancements. Like the miniaturisation of technology was required to conserve mass in space to save fuel, it led to modern-day smartphones and IoT devices. Organ transplant: we have the technology to recreate human organs, but on Earth, due to gravity, it tends to collapse while recreating organs. So space with no gravity can ameliorate this problem. We can order a heart from space in a day in the future. Satellite communication and GPS is possible because of space research. Ironically, people complain about space travel from their smartphones.  

BUT IF IT IS OUR MONEY, WHY BILLIONAIRES ARE GOING TO SPACE?

Recently, Jeff Bezos Blue Origin, Richard Branson, Virgin Galactic and Elon Musk’s SpaceX sent people to space as part of space tourism. All these companies have some form of government contracts like SpaceX and Blue Origin for Artemis (NASA program to go to the moon) or at least backed by the government agencies with infrastructure. Income inequality and unemployment worldwide are at an all-time high; it is frustrating to see these billionaires flaunt their wealth in space. But this happens with all products; initially, it is part of rich people's lives who pay a premium for these products so that the manufacturer can invest in scaling up and make it available for the masses. It happened with cars, cell phones and now space. Also, government-backed agencies like NASA or ISRO always face a dilemma. It is challenging to convince taxpayers to fund a mission to Mars, but an eccentric billionaire can do it. If ISRO wants to get extra funds from the Karnataka government, it needs to do something for the Karnataka government(quid pro quo). Similarly, NASA has its manufacturing hubs spread throughout the US, bringing in logistic problems, whereas SpaceX bought an entire island named Boca Chica for its testing base. Space programs are expensive, so we need private individuals' investment to fund these. Who are we to stop if a billionaire plans to go to Mars and provide us cheaper internet (Starlink) and makes spaceflight more affordable and reusable. Also, this is not a secret plot by billionaires to leave this planet because of climate change. Do you think they will abandon their yachts in favour of pressurised small cabins? So this investment is necessary, and in the long run, it will save taxpayers money by propelling competition. 

Space-related interest is growing substantially after private companies like SpaceX, Rocket labs etc. Space tourism is set to reach $1.3 Billion in 2025. So do you still think scraping their budget will be helpful? Or do you guarantee that the funds diverted from Space research will be appropriately utilised to alleviate poverty? Should billionaires donate to people on Earth rather than spending money on space programs? 

All these complaints belie the real problem with the current space research. Recently, the Russian military conducted an ASAT (Anti-Satellite) Weapon test and its debris endangered the ISS crew. So weaponizing space research is a big concern. Also, it is a concentrated industry, and only a handful of countries can do it. Space has no boundaries or maritime zones, so few countries are reaping its benefits. So an international body needs to be set up for proper distribution of resources. The findings and research can be made public so that all can access them.

Another problem is Kessler’s syndrome. With rising space pollution, if two satellites collide, it may lead to a cascading effect, and each collision generates space debris that increases the likelihood of further collisions. As part of its Starlink project, 1468 satellites are orbiting the Earth, and SpaceX is planning to launch 42,000 satellites to orbit. Even if these satellites are equipped with self-destruction by burning in the atmosphere after retiring, the worst-case scenario probability rises with each satellite released to orbit.

Let’s take up a calculation: The James Webb Space Telescope costs $10 billion dollars and the total world population is 7.5 Billion. So if 500 Million people that is 7.1% of the population pay 20 dollars or nearly 1500 Rupees, the space program will be funded. The project took 35 years to complete so with an average rate of inflation of 7%, the cost comes out to be around 80 rupees in 1986. It is like investing for a library to our universe, it is totally worth it and the innovations equipped in JWTS are at least 10-15 years into the future.

So what do you think? Is space flight is necessary for our human civilization? Pin it down in the comments