sign in sign up
<<
Home , Colonization of the Moon, Failure Is Not an Option, Space research, Topic (chocolate bar)

Space Exploration Debate

1. Get students to get into groups based on which one of the following they agree with:

-­‐ In favor of sending both human and robotic missions to space -­‐ In favor of only sending robotic missions to space -­‐ Not in favor of -­‐ Undecided

Let the students know that they can change groups at anytime during the debate, as many times as they wish.

2. Give groups about 5 minutes to talk amongst themselves and decide which points are the most important if they were to convince someone of their opinion.

3. Each group gets 2 minutes to state their case (other groups cannot rebuttal until all groups have gone).

4. The debate begins! How this goes will depend on the class. The students can just talk amongst themselves (but step in if it gets too off topic, or certain students are dominating the conversation, etc.). Another way is to get the students to put their hands up when they have something to say, and you choose who talks next. It is useful to put a time limit (30-­‐60 seconds) on how long they can talk for. Let the debate go on for as long as time allows, but make sure there are 10-­‐15 minutes at the end of class for a wrap-­‐up.

5. Interject information or ask questions as the debate goes on if someone is way off base on something or if there is something important that hadn’t been covered yet. Try your best, though, not to influence the students.

6. Makes notes of points that were brought up often (typically economics, humans vs. machines, other things (social programs, health research) are more important, etc.)

7. Wrap-­‐up the debate by providing information regarding the points that were brought up often (what percentage of American budget goes to NASA; spin-­‐off technologies; collaboration between humans & robots, we need to find somewhere to live when “explodes”, etc.). Write down a table with pros and cons of space exploration. Let the students know that this topic is continually under debate among scientists.

Page 1 of 14

Resources: NASA receives about $18-­‐19 billion per year (http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html), which is about 0.5% of the American budget ($3.82 trillion -­‐ http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/index.html)

Spin-­‐off technologies: http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm Book: Down to Earth: How improves our lives (ESA)

Some Pros/Cons from http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=91:

Pros Cons

Mankind must always struggle to expand High ideals are all well and good, but not its horizons. The desire to know what lies when they come at the expense of the beyond current knowledge, the curiosity present. Our world is marred by war, that constantly pushes at the boundaries of famine, and poverty; billions of people are our understanding, is one of our noblest struggling simply to live from day to day. characteristics. The exploration of the Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury universe is a high ideal - space truly is the they cannot afford. Instead of wasting our final frontier. The instinct to explore is time and effort on macho prestige projects fundamentally human; already some of our such as the space programme, we must set most amazing achievements have taken ourselves new targets. Once we have place in space. No-one can deny the sense addressed the problems we face on Earth, of wonder, world-wide, when for the first we will have all the time we want to time a new man-made star rose in the sky, explore the universe; but not before then. or when first stepped onto The money spent on probes to distant the . Space exploration speaks to that would be better invested in the part of us which rises above the everyday. people of our own . A world free from disease, a world where no-one lives in hunger, would be a truly great achievement.

Page 2 of 14

The exploitation of space has directly technology has of course had a changed our world. orbiting the beneficial effect on our world. However, Earth allow us to communicate there is a huge difference between instantaneously with people on different launching satellites into Earth , and continents, and to broadcast to people all exploring space. Missions to other planets, over the world. The Global Positioning and into interstellar space, do not System allows us to pinpoint our location contribute to life on our planet. Moreover, anywhere in the world. Weather satellites satellites are largely commercial - they are save lives by giving advance warning of launched by private companies, and are adverse conditions, and together with other maintained by the profits which they lead scientific instruments in orbit they have to. True space exploration could never be helped us understand our own world better. commercial, and requires huge government Research into climate change, for example, subsidies - the Voyager missions alone cost would be almost impossible without the just under $1 billion. This money could be data provided by satellites. much better spent elsewhere.

Space exploration has also led to many These spin-off advantages could come indirect benefits. The challenge and from any ‘blue-sky’ project - they are a difficulty of the space programme, and its result of the huge amounts of money and ability to draw on some of the finest minds, manpower devoted to the space has brought about great leaps in programme, giving people the resources technology. The need to reduce weight on they need to solve problems, rather than a led to miniaturisation, and so to the result of the programme itself. For micro-chip and the modern computer. The example, many of the leaps forward in need to produce safe but efficient power- miniaturisation were in fact the result of sources for the Apollo missions led to the trying to build better nuclear missiles; this development of practical -cells, which is not a good reason to continue building are now being explored as a possible future nuclear weapons. It would be far better to power-source for cleaner cars. The effects devote similar resources to projects with of zero- on has worthier goals – for example cancer substantially added to our knowledge of the research, or research into renewable energy workings of the human body, and the sources. These too could have many spin- ageing process. We can never know off benefits, but would tackle real exactly which benefits will emerge from problems. the space programme in future, but we do know that we will constantly meet new obstacles in pursuit of our goals, and in overcoming them will find new solutions to old problems.

Page 3 of 14

Space exploration is an investment in the Space exploration is a waste of resources. future. Our world is rapidly running out of If we wish to tackle the problems of over- resources. Overpopulation could become a population, or of the depletion of resources, serious worldwide threat. In this position, it we must deal with them on the Earth would be foolish to ignore the vast instead of chasing an elusive dream. There potential of our own – are practical ways in which we can deal resources on asteroids or other planets, or with the problems of our planet, and we even the possibility of colonising other must pursue them with all the resources worlds. If we fail to continue to develop and all the political will we have available. the ability to take advantage of these possibilities, we may in the future find it is too late.

Debate: Funding for space exploration From: http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Funding_for_space_exploration

Should governments prioritize spending on the exploration of space?

Background and context: From the moment that the launched Sputnik in 1957 the aim of the was to be the first to go where no man had gone before. became the first man in space on 12th April 1961 and over the next couple of decades astronauts and cosmonauts battled to break records and frontiers. Yet since Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon on 22nd July 1969 man’s conquest of space has slowed. By the late 1970s both the USA and USSR had given up on travelling to the Moon, let alone , and were focused on creating a permanent presences in the near-­‐Earth space stations (USSR) and (USA), both of which have now

Page 4 of 14

been replaced by the International . The end of the Cold War led to massive budget cuts and NASA was forced to adopt a ‘Quicker, Faster, Cheaper’ approach which focused its efforts on robotic exploration. After ’s success in sending Yang Liwei into space in October 2003 and a second disaster in February 2003, US President George W. Bush echoed President Kennedy in pledging NASA to manned exploration and an eventual trip to Mars. Yet some commentators claim that man is an unnecessary (and costly) distraction from scientific exploration and that we would be better off staying on Earth. They add that since Dennis Tito became the first ‘space tourist’ in 2002 and the privately built $20m SpaceShipOne won the X Prize in 2004 by entering suborbital space twice in five days, the future lies with privately run with state funding limited to unmanned scientific missions.

Exploration: Is space an important frontier for human exploration/inspiration?

Yes • Space exploration is inspiring No and pushes humans to advance • There is sufficient room for "Space exploration is not a waste exploration on earth; space is of money". Science Ray. Sep. 30th, excessive. Rather than probing 2007 -­‐ "The curiosity of humans Mars for life, we should be leads us to do many things. It is looking to the 95% of the world’s probably the reason for outer oceans that have yet to be space research. The evidence that explored and where we are has been gathered supporting constantly finding new forms of interesting information has just life and new scientific discoveries. fuelled this curiosity. Curiosity is For example, bacteria have been the root to all sciences. found which survive not by using Archaeology, , chemistry, sunlight as an energy source, but and many other braches volcanic vents on the ocean floor of science were only done – a discovery which made because of curiosity. Without scientists looking for life on Mars curiosity, the human race might totally change their approach. still be in the Stone Age. Isaac And with individuals constantly Newton was curious about the in the news for attempts to falling apple and why it fell. Big traverse the globe in rowing curiosity has made us do big boats, hot air balloons and tied to things. Space exploration might gliders, there are clearly enough lead to a good thing too!" ‘boundaries’ on this planet to • Space exploration inspires keep even our keenest explorers children to study science (an happy. investment)

Page 5 of 14

Science: Does space exploration benefit science, human understanding?

No

• The scientific benefits of

manned space programmes are

severely overstated; NASA

spends over a third of its budget

simply keeping the ISS manned

and the Space Shuttle working.

The vast majority of its spending

on scientific research comes

through ground based research,

and unmanned Yes missions. China has made no • Manned space-­flight has claims that there is a scientific spawned many scientific benefit to its manned mission and innovations. The need to make nor has Russia in recent years. equipment ‘fail-­‐safe’ because of • Few missions to space have its role in keeping humans alive produced notable scientific in space means that the level of results. There are few funding and testing is necessarily experiments so important that higher than for non-­‐manned they can justify the huge cost missions. This has resulted in needed to allow them to be advances that have included the carried out by humans in zero Teflon found on non-­‐stick frying gravity. NASA made a lot of noise pans, new ways of testing about growing zero-­‐gravity aerodynamics which have protein crystals as a potential improved planes, huge cure for cancer when it was improvements in computing trying to justify building the ISS power and software, etc. but has since dropped the claims as experiments have shown the claims were overstated. • Going into space to discover the effects of space on humans is circular logic. The argument that humans need to be in space in order to find out the effects of being in space should be treated with caution; it is essentially a circular argument as with no manned missions, there would be no need to find out the impact of space on humans.

Page 6 of 14

Funding: Should space exploration be publicly funded?

Yes No • Space exploration pays for • The costs of pushing the itself by inspiring funders. boundaries in space are too • Public funding is necessary to high. Even with a budget of achieve real results in space. $16.5bn for 2006, NASA expects it While the private market may be will take more than a decade to able to cater for the rich few who return to the moon and has no want to see sub-­‐orbital space date for Mars. The cost of really (and some 11,000 have signed up pushing the boundaries of human to fly there with Richard exploration is too high even for Branson’s Virgin Galactica from the big-­‐spending Bush 2007), ultimately the boundaries administration, so surely we need of science involve keeping to examine the scientific and humans in space for long periods technological returns of the space (the current record is 439 days), programme as it really is rather travelling further, discovering than how it appears in Star Trek. what the rest of our solar system • Space funding would be better holds and, eventually, trying to spent helping people on earth live on the moon or Mars. It is Dennis Kucinich, responding to only through state subsidies that president Bush's 2004 space such exploration is financially initiatives, said: "I also want to possible. explore planet Earth and planet • Space programs have relatively D.C."[1] small budgets "Space • Private markets are better exploration is not a waste of suited to invest in space money". Science Ray. Sep. 30th, exploration What better way to 2007 -­‐ "Space exploration is not a colonise space than to leave it to waste of money. In fact, USA the private market to develop the spends only 1% of the budget on space tourism market to include space exploration. If it was not space hotels and moon bases? spent, instead of a poor person The success of the $10m X Prize getting a dollar, he would get a at attracting interest and private dollar and 3 cents. Does this investment in private space make that much of a difference?" programmes has shown that • Space exploration is more there is no need for the state to valuable than some other be involved in space travel on the human expenditures Virgiliu non-­‐science side. Given suitable Pop. "Is Space Exploration Worth international safety standards (as the Cost?". Space Daily. January were agreed on air travel in the 19th, 2005 -­‐ "many of the critics inter-­‐war period) it would of the space programme on social transfer the investment and risk grounds are "limousine liberals". away from the taxpayer as well as

Page 7 of 14

They point the finger at the US producing the sort of space travel government for wasting their tax that would really inspire the money in space instead of human race – the sort that tens of helping the poor, but they are not thousands of people would feeling guilty for their own actually get a chance to take part consumerist life style and for in. their own scale of priorities. • Significant private capital can For instance, this year, total pet-­‐ be raised for space exploration. related sales in the Even if NASA is unwilling to fund are projected to be $31 billion – a particular project does not the double, almost to the cent, of mean it cannot take place – the the $15.47 billion NASA budget. Beagle 2 project to search for life An estimated $5 billion worth of on Mars was organised by British holiday season gifts were offered scientist Professor Colin Pillinger – not to the poor – but to the and raised a significant amount of roving family pets – six times its ?50m cost from private more than NASA spent on its own sources and sponsorship. The roving Martian explorers, Spirit Beagle 2 never responded from and Opportunity, who cost the the surface of the Red Planet but American taxpayer $820 million the principle of scientific both. Instead of providing a communities being able to raise for the immorally sufficient capital for small expensive shuttles, Florida can do unmanned missions has been better and clothe the proven. underprivileged -­‐ a genuine alligator pet collar cost only $400 a piece." • Space exploration has brought many practical benefits to humans • Humans could benefit from natural resources of other planets • Space exploration stimulates economic activity and jobs on Earth.

Planet: Does the human race need to be able to move to another planet?

Yes No • Humans should not rely solely • The risk of us being wiped out on Earth for their long-­term by an asteroid like the future The potential damage dinosaurs is very very small. In done by an asteroid or comet that any case unmanned missions

Page 8 of 14

collides with the Earth could (missiles, satellite mounted lasers range from the impact of the etc.) would probably be as atomic bombing of Hiroshima to effective as any manned attempt the complete destruction of all to divert an asteroid despite what life on the planet. A manned films like Armageddon and Deep mission might be necessary to Impact might suggest. destroy or divert such an object • Humans should not bank on before it reaches our planet. destroying the Earth and There is also the potential for moving to another planet. As other terrible damage to be done for the potential for us to mess up to the Earth (whether through the Earth sufficiently to require climate change, warfare or us to leave the planet, perhaps we overcrowding), which could should work harder at looking mean that as a race we would after this planet rather than have no choice but to leave the looking for another one to planet. In that situation, high damage. levels of knowledge about human space travel and the ability to colonise Mars or other planets would be essential.

Mars: Are missions to mars important, worth funding?

Yes No • Even if 60% of Americans • 60% of Americans oppose currently oppose funding a funding a mission to Mars. "Do research on Mars, if a time for you think the US should fund a evacuation ever comes no one Mars mission?" 60% said no.[2] will be able to oppose the • Mars mission is not first in the decision to evacuate Earth, thus list of priorities. There are research on Mars should be made already enough problems at mandatory. home into which the money could • In case of the Earth being over be invested. As Patti Davis argued populated or over polluted, Mars in 2004, the funding for the can be used to restart civilization mission -­‐$750 billion-­‐ would anew. Technology can always much better be used in help make humans adaptable to alternative energy research and climate. fighting climate change. [3]

Robots: Should people be flown to space instead of robots?

Yes No • Humans are able to make • Some spin-­off technology will

Page 9 of 14

judgments in space exploration come from unmanned space and testing. There is a travel as easily as from manned distinction between collection of space travel (e.g. data and interpretation of data. technology, robotics, computing Robots are very good at power etc.), and one should bear collecting data but not good at in mind that most manned space responding to that data and programmes are centred on acting flexibly on it. under-­‐funded programmes using • Robots are inefficient at old technology due to budgetary collecting data. The most constraints (Russia), low flexible robots yet to leave Earth, technological development the Mars Rovers, could only (China) or focused on repetitive travel a few metres and test some operations (USA) which do not nearby rocks. Humans on the involve significant funding into Moon were able to travel new technologies. As a result of significant distances, selectively space programmes often being choose rock types from a variety closely linked to the military (in of locations and prioritise China it is a division of the experiments based on the results military), the spin-­‐offs that are they received as they were on the sought are usually for military Moon’s surface. Ideally scientists rather than consumer products, would like to understand other and more likely to be kept secret planets and bodies as well as they for exactly that reason. However, do on Earth. This would require the problem with the spin-­‐off huge numbers of experiments argument in principle is that and surveys which would be investing in developing a non-­‐ much better done by long stick frying pan would surely be manned missions or permanent cheaper than investing in a scientific missions (as have been manned space programme which posted to for decades) produces Teflon as a side-­‐effect. rather than a series of unmanned Where there are truly significant missions over a decade. This also problems and areas in need of applies to experiments carried technological advances either the out in zero gravity onboard the state should fund research (as it ISS or Space Shuttle, such as does in many ways through attempts to grow protein crystals research grants, support for or look at the impact of zero-­‐ universities etc.) or the free gravity on the behaviour of market will step in and exploit a organisms. market for a new technological • Humans must be in space in solution to a problem. order to test the impact space • Funding should only go to cost-­ has on them. Only by having effective robotic space humans in space that we are able exploration "Mars Rising?". The to find out what the impact of Economist. January 22, 2009.: space does to their physiological "Luckily, technology means that

Page 10 of 14

and psychological well being. man can explore both the moon This makes future manned and Mars more fully without exploration more possible as well going there himself. Robots are as teaching us about humans. better and cheaper than they Discoveries on bone and muscle have ever been. They can work depletion during space travel tirelessly for years, beaming back have helped in the care of data and images, and returning bedridden patients and on how samples to Earth. They can also to speed up the rate of muscle be made sterile, which germ-­‐ growth. infested humans, who risk • Manned missions force space-­ spreading disease around the craft to have greater weight-­ solar system, cannot." bearing capacities for rocks. A second reason why manned experiments and exploration would be more effective is that any manned mission will necessarily be heavier. This is because it has to carry the weight of humans and their life support equipment. For this reason the cost of returning samples or carrying scientific equipment will be more possible because of the negligible weight they add to the payload. This means that even if the mission is primarily about political grandstanding, science will still benefit. Compare the USSR’s ability to bring back 321g of lunar rock using robots with the 382kg brought back by the US Apollo missions. The latter proved the ‘giant impact’ theory, told us a lot about the evolution and geological change of the Moon and our own Earth, and are still being studied today.

International relations: Is sending humans to space good for international relations?

Yes No

Page 11 of 14

• Multinational space programs • Flag-­staking is occurring in are good for international space and spread nationalistic diplomacy. Since the “historic sentiments. Sending humans handshake in space” when a US into space or to other planets so Apollo and Soviet Soyuz capsules that they can erect the flag of a docked in 1975, the two particular nation is a distinctly countries have grown nationalistic act and one that is increasingly close. This likely to create aggressive 'races' relationship involves sharing in the future just as it has before. technology (which is almost all China’s manned programme is ‘dual use’ i.e. it could be used for openly intended to challenge the military purposes as well as US dominance of space for the civilian, thus requiring a high Communist regime’s huge degree of trust), scientific propaganda benefit. George W. knowledge and working side-­‐by-­‐ Bush’s pledge to boost spending side to build and support the ISS. on NASA and to restart the With the involvement of the 11 manned mission to Mars member states of the European programme was a direct Space Agency as well as Canada, response. This is damaging not and Brazil in the project, only because of the potential for space is one of the few spheres space race conflicts to escalate where governments have been into greater international able to put aside their differences hostility, but also because of the in pursuit of something more way such races could result in the fundamentally important to militarization of space (as several humanity – surely something that Chinese hawks have called on the we should continue. leadership to do), thereby turning something which should be preserved for the common good of humankind into a neo-­‐colonial battlefield.

Taxpayers: Should opponents of space exploration still be required to contribute?

Yes No • Individuals are not always • People should not be forced to good at judging what is contribute towards something beneficial in the long term. If they oppose. Even when people people are told they do not have do not want to fund space travel, to pay, they will probably choose they are currently forced to do so. not to pay. This is despite the fact This is unfair as people should that space travel has many have a choice on issues like this, benefits which should be as not paying will not harm

Page 12 of 14

supported with public money. anyone. • People can be trusted to make the right choices. When people are given the choice of whether they want contribute towards space travel, they are likely to choose the one that is best for themselves and society, whether space exploration or no space exploration is a better choice.

Yes

• "Why are we wasting money in space?". Everything2. August 1st, 2005

• "Space exploration is not a waste

of money". Science Ray. Sep. 30th,

2007

• Virgiliu Pop. "Is Space Exploration Worth the Cost?". No Space Daily. January 19th, 2005 • Reasons for opposition to space • NASA exploration • • Anne Applebaum. "Mission to • Space Daily Nowhere". Post. • Chinese National Space January 7, 2004 Administration • "Mars Rising?". The Economist. • Chinese Academy of Launch January 22, 2009. Vehicle Technology • Shuttle Press Kit • Europe & Russia collaboration • Reasons to support space exploration • "Mission To Nowhere?". Transterrestrial Musings.

[Edit] See also • Debate: Mission to the Moon or Mars? • Debate: Space exploration • Debate: of the Moon • Debate: Mission to Mars • Debate: Should humans colonize ? • Debate:

Page 13 of 14

• Debate: One-­‐way, one-­‐person mission to Mars • Debate: Manned space flight • Debate: Manned mission to Mars • Debate: International space organization • Debate: Value of NASA • Debate: [Edit] External links • NASA • European Space Agency • Space Daily • X Prize • Space.com coverage of SpaceshipOne • China's manned space programme • Chinese National Space Administration • Chinese Academy of Technology • BBC: Space Exploration • BBC: Mars Exploration • BBC web discussion • Shuttle Press Kit • NASA Budget • Europe & Russia collaboration • Political Base [Edit] Books • Failure is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to and Beyond : • China's Space Program: From Conception to Manned Space Flight : Brian Harvey • Advanced Space System Concepts and Technologies : Ivan Bekey • Space Tourism: Adventures in Earth's Orbit and Beyond : Michel van Pelt • We Have Capture: Tom Stafford and the Space Race : Tom P. Stafford • The Story of the Space Shuttle : David M. Harland • Space Tourism: Do You Want to Go? : Karen Rugg

Page 14 of 14