In the contemporary times, there are many increased incidences where public opinion has determined to a large extent the actions that the politicians take about issue of the concern, and space exploration program is no exception. Such public opinion about different issues of concerns has also determined the position that two differing political sides have about the subject of concern and, hence, the policies and measures that the different political groups takes. Such positions have determined to a large extent the political processes outcomes. And, therefore, politicians have been keen on the actions and comments that they make about issues of interest to the public and in situations that majority of the public might go against a concern, many of the politicians are always reluctant to contravene the public’s opinions. And, consequently, hardly intervene and contradicts the public for the sake of the political outcomes and also to reduce the chances of their rivals and competitors to counter them and, hence, gain political mileage over the competing politicians. There are many issues that have become of interest to the public and politicians in the current times such as funding of health care programs and funding of higher education programs. Also, security issues and measures were taken by authorities and funding of the space program among others that have seen intense debates about the actions taken by politicians and governments attracting a great interest to the public. However, this paper presents the position why there is the need for a well-funded space program and the roles that politicians can play in the realization of the goal.
The question of whether to increase funding for NASA has resulted in intense debates in public and the political class at large that has seen different reasons given by both opposing sides about the subject under discussion. However, the benefits that would result from a well-funded space program would be much higher and outweigh the costs and, hence, the support that I have on the subject (issue). On the July of 1969 close to a million people drove to Florida to watch Apollo eleventh launch and head straight for the moon. The close to a million people did not ride to Florida to enjoy the warm weather, blue waters or sandy beaches. Moreover, an estimated six hundred million people from around the word tuned in to watch the lunar lander touch down on the surface of the moon. It was the defining moment in the American history that was named the “space age” that indicate a lot of enthusiasm and attention to many people in the society that include the politicians and the public at large that supported the action related to the space program at the time. It was among the first incidences of space exploration that established the American position in the international arena as a superpower that shaped and determined many issues of interest not only to the Americans but also the world at large. The politicians at the time capitalized on such a magnitude event led by then President of the United State Richard Nixon and his administration. They had a contingency plan if captured even the worse expectation and scenarios if the two Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin did not manage to return to Earth (Richard Nixon Library, nd). It was a defining moment in the American history that made every American proud as a result of successful exploration to the moon as noted by the pioneers. The politicians through the media houses had expressed their confidence and belief in the American dream and vision as a leading global player and their concern over the subject of Apollo eleventh launch also contributed to the intense attraction to the public. Unfortunately, since that time the space program has slowly deteriorated over time due to a significant cutback of funding from the government. Politicians, therefore, can play a critical role that ensures that the impetus and magnitude experienced in the late 60’s at the time of Apollo eleventh launch is brought back by channeling additional funding and resources to the space program. The high cost of space travel and the public’s inability to see the benefits of space exploration has been the main cause of government funding being cut. What many critiques of the additional funding for space programs do not realize is that robust, well-funded space program is very affordable for the government and important to the success of future missions as well as the long-term survival of the human race. It is for the above-noted reason that the government should re-evaluate their priorities and increase funding for the national space program. Politicians have a critical role to play in this course as they determine the funding allocated to various issues of concern to the public and, consequently, the politicians should intensify the debate over the subject to convince the public of the benefits that can result from such adventures (Sadeh, 2002). Most of the public opinions are shaped by the politician’s positions and presentation over issues of concerns, and hence they get informed by analyzing the diverse views on issues of concerns such as the space program and funding. However, since the debate is not currently among the politician's critical issues, it has contributed to the perception that majority of the public have about the subject about the reduced costs of funding to space programs.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
At the time of the Apollo eleventh launch that saw the enthusiasm for the space program and space exploration, in general, was at an all-time high, many Americans thought it was not worth the money. And, consequently, it is shown from the very start or onset of the space program, the public opinion about the money and allocation of funds to the space program has shown contradictions by the public. Politicians, therefore, need to show such evidence and help shape the public and other politicians’ views and in particular those who oppose additional funding for the space program. A Harris poll conducted in 1970, just one year after NASA landed a man on the moon revealed that Fifty-six percent of Americans said that the Apollo eleven missions were not worth the cost, which in total cost was 375 million dollars at the time which would equal about two and a half billion dollars today. Another poll conducted by the same company in 1971 found that eighty-one percent of Americans agreed with the statement “nothing can equal seeing the astronauts land and walk on the moon as it happened on live TV.” The two opinions, thus, ascertain the fact that many people including politicians should consider adding additional funding for the space program. Politicians have to provide another attribute that they can measure the benefits that result from space exploration other than the monetary values. The main public concern opposing additional funding can be viewed to be egocentric that only want benefits that help them at the expense of other costs and needs required to realize such benefits as noted in the space program case. The trend of high enthusiasm for space exploration but not wanting to pay the cost of space travel has proven true throughout the years all the way up to present time. The politicians are responsible for making laws and decisions that support government funded programs, thus, need to confront the issue face on and expand additional funding to space program as noted since the inception of the space exploration the public has always have an issue related to funding (Moltz, 2011). They need to challenge the public views and note that in the event if other sources of funding could be encouraged that does not come from the public sources of funding but rather other organizations and institutions interested in space exploration. They would change their views on the space exploration and encourage it because of the many benefits that they are aware can result from the program. The public position, thus, is egocentric that only wants to reap but not plant. The politicians can play a great role in increasing the public perception about the subject and should be ready to contrast the public opinions even if there might be political consequences related to such actions. If the outcomes of such space programs prove beneficial to the human race as it has shown, the politicians that stood with such tough decisions against the majority public opinions also stand a better chance of progressing in their political career. The public easily shifts views and opinions about politicians about the issues of concerns. Once the politician can prove the public wrong, they develop and earn more confidence and self-belief from the public that presents a higher opportunity to exploit and expand their political careers. Politicians, therefore, should also view the issue and concern of space exploration from a diverse point of views and not the benefits that they reap as result of going against the majority public opinion in issues of interest (Sadeh, 2002). Surveys taken over the past forty years about space exploration and government funding from multiple national opinion research centers all suggest that the American people feel the government spends too much money on the space program. From the noted surveys, the percentage of people that agree to spend more money on NASA has not risen above twenty-two percent in the past forty years. Politicians should note the figures and help them argue and convince their counterparts and the public at large noting that despite the majority having their way, the minorities say is equally important, and the majority is not always correct. Hence, they should encourage more public funding for space exploration. On the other hand, many surveys put out by the PEW research center and the Smithsonian magazine suggests that the enthusiasm for space exploration is still pretty high. For example, a survey conducted in 2010 shows that sixty-three percent of Americans believe that America will have put astronauts on Mars by 2050, and more than half of Americans believe that ordinary citizens will be able to participate in space travel by that time (Kennedy & Funk, 2016). The results of these surveys prove that there is still a great interest in space exploration itself just not the big price tag. Politicians, thus, should capitalize on that enthusiasm and revive the intense debate and concern related to space programs to enhance and change public opinion about the subject as well as change the perception that weighs benefits of space exploration against funding that has resulted in reduced funding by the government.
The public has made the funding to be viewed by both politicians and government as a ‘high price tag’ that is not the case prompting actions that reduce funding. The funding for the space program is very much affordable despite the costs. The analysis of the history of funding has proved that it is much affordable to the government than perceived by the public. The funding for NASA peaked 1966 and accounted for 4.4 percent of all government spending. In the years between 1975 and 2000, that dropped to one percent. Today, the current budget allotted by the government for NASA is just 18.5 billion dollars for this fiscal year. While 18.5 billion dollars sounds like a lot of money, in a multi-trillion dollar economy that amounts to only 0.5 percent of all government spending. According to NASA it only costs one hundred thirty-three dollars to launch a rocket to the international space station compared to the 2.5 billion dollars it cost to launch Apollo eleven to the moon. It can be attributed to the budget cuts themselves. The lack of funding forced scientists and engineers to come up with better and cheaper technology. While this is a good thing, unfortunately, the rapid drop in the budget has also forced engineers to cut corners to try to keep up with the enthusiasm of the American people which has led to even more catastrophic failures. It is, as a result, increases vulnerabilities in the space exploration programs that can lead to more dangerous paths and risks as noted in 1993 after the loss of an eight hundred thirteen million dollar satellite that was set to orbit Mars. The political class should note such incidences and help restate more funding to eliminate possible repeats of such actions as scientists try to look for shortcuts to reach and satisfy the American enthusiasm and desire related to space exploration. They need to argue and convince the public as well as fellow politicians that oppose such additional funding programs and remind them that cheap Is always expensive and, therefore, encourage a change in perception and add additional funding. Such evidence can easily help convince the masses when the politicians incorporate them in their arguments and views about the subject of discussion. NASA enacted their new movement of “better, faster, cheaper” movement to act as a type of second chance for the public and to keep up with the enthusiasm of the people. NASA used initiatives that include better technology to provide cheaper results. They used cheaper materials which led to only three out of the twelve probes being able to land and carry out their missions on Mars (Krauthammer, 2005). It showed their desire and urged to fill the enthusiasm from the citizens. The resultant negative effects from the reduced costs have also increased the public perception against funding of space program and channeled to other concerns even when there is no planet to live on.
The human history has presented incidences of an end to the world, and the concern for many has been whether human beings will go down with it. The scientific theories for destruction range from partial destruction to the absolute vaporization of the Earth. The most popular theory for the partial destruction would be a relatively small asteroid hitting the surface of the Earth with the potential to wipe out an entire continent or more (Today Science, 2015). Fortunately, NASA has a map of all the known asteroids and their orbits in our solar system. Unfortunately, this map is only of the known asteroids; NASA admits there is a very real possibility for an Earth-destroying asteroid to have gone unnoticed or fly in from another part of space. With better funding, NASA would be able to improve their equipment for finding and tracking asteroids in our solar system. Such compelling evidence when employed and used by the politicians would play a critical role in convincing the concerned parties to increase funding and have a change in perception about the issues related to space programs. With better funding, NASA would be able to have better technology to find planets suitable for human life. They would also be able to research and build better, more efficient modes of space travel. We should not care about the price tag when it comes to furthering the survival of the human race. The public and the politicians who oppose such funding options related to space programs, for this reason, need to change their perception and views about the subject because of the many benefits that result from the process as well as the falsely high price tag associated with the program (Moltz, 2011). Hopefully, more people will be able to see the importance of a well-funded government space program. If more people believe that NASA deserves more government funding then maybe America can return to being the front runners in space innovation. The citizens of the United States need to realize that a higher funding for NASA is practical, affordable and crucial for our survival as a human race long term. The politicians, thus, should use the evidence provided that supports the benefits that result from space program exploration to develop the political theory, comparative politics, and public policy as well as develop the political methodology that would result in increased funding for the space program.
References
Kennedy, B. & Funk, C. (2016, December 5). “Many Americans are skeptical about scientific research on climate and GM foods.” Pew Research . Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/
Krauthammer, C. (2005). Space Exploration Should Focus on Mars and the Colonization of Other Worlds." Space Exploration. Ed. Daniel A. Leone. San Diego: Greenhaven Press. At Issue. Rpt. from "On to Mars." Weekly Standard , 23-27. Opposing Viewpoints in Context.
Moltz, J. C. (2011). The Politics of Space Security: Strategic Restraint and the Pursuit of National Interests. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Richard Nixon Library. (nd). Moon Landing. Presidential Library and Museum . Retrieved from https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/forkids/speechesforkids/moonlanding.php
Sadeh, E. (2002). Space Politics and Policy: An Evolutionary Perspective . Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Today Science. (2015). “Killer Asteroid.” Infobase Learning . Retrieved from http://tsof.infobaselearning.com/recordurl.aspx?wid=97333&ID=33872
