Frequently Asked Questions

-. How much does the space program cost?

We currently spend an insignificant part of the national budget on the space program.  Under the President’s proposed FY2009 budget, NASA funding amounts $17.6 billion, which is roughly one-half of one percent of the federal budget.  In other words, for every hundred dollars you pay in federal taxes, only about fifty cents goes to the space program.

By contrast, for every dollar it spends on the space program, the federal government spends about $94 on social programs.  For every dollar it spends on the space program, the federal governments spends at least $49 on defense.  This is not to say that the government shouldn’t spend money on these things, but it clearly illustrates how small a piece of the pie the space program gets.

-. Why should we invest in space when there are so many  problems on Earth?

No one suggests that Thomas Jefferson should have solved all of America’s problems before he sent Lewis and Clark to explore the American West.  For that matter, no one suggests that the primordial ancestors of humans should have solved all of their problems before they learned to walk upright.

More to the point, far from diverting resources away from solving our problems, our space program today provides benefits far in excess of its cost.  Consider these examples:

• Satellite technology provides us with our telecommunications system, weather prediction, and GPS navigation.  Any single one of those provides us with economic advantages that surpass the cost of the entire space program.
• Landsat satellites, first launched in 1972, allow incredibly detailed observation of the Earth from orbit.  The information derived from Landsat provides enormous aid to cartography, agricultural management, regional planning, fishery and forestry management, resource mapping and a whole host of other activities critical to the world economy.
• The superiority of the American military largely stems from its use of space technology.  Military reconnaissance satellites not only allow unrivaled military advantage, but also allow us to validate our treaty agreements with other powers, thus building confidence and reducing international tensions.  Satellite-guided weapons enable our military to better protect our troops while avoiding civilian casualties.
• Global climate change is an unprecedented planetary emergency.  We are able to understand the nature of the problem only because of Earth-observing spacecraft to monitor the Earth’s environment.  Clearly, the space program will play a critical role in solving this crisis.
• The scientific knowledge we can from other worlds helps us to better understand our own.  Our understanding of global warming was derived from our studies of Venus, while our understanding of ozone depletion was derived from our studies of Mars.

-. What long-run benefits can we expect from a roust and comprehensive space program?

In the 21^st Century, a major issue will be the depletion of fossil fuels and the resulting energy shortages.  Developing renewable energy supplies will not be sufficient to make up the shortfall.  However, the use of space resources provides possible solutions to the energy crisis.

Space-based solar power involves large orbiting satellites that will collect solar power and beam it back down to Earth.  This has tremendous advantages over traditional solar power and could provide effectively unlimited energy to Earth with little or no environmental impact.

By the second half of the 21^st Century, nuclear fusion will potentially be a major part of Earth’s energy economy.  The most effective form of nuclear fusion involves using deuterium and helium-3 as fuel.  Deuterium is abundant on Earth, but helium-3 is effectively non-existent.  However, helium-3 is plentiful on the Moon, where it has been deposited by the solar wind over billions of years.  Automated mining operations to harvest the helium-3 on the Moon could provide fuel for fusion reactors that would be sufficient to power the entire Earth for thousands of years, with little or no environmental impact.  A major proponent of this project is Harrison Schmitt, the last person and only professional scientist to walk on the Moon.

Another critical issue in the 21^st Century will be shortages of raw materials, the need to mitigate the environmental damage caused by their extraction from the Earth, and perhaps “resource wars” between rival nations.  A robust and comprehensive space program will eventually allow us to exploit the resources of the Asteroid Belt, which would provide us with raw materials in amounts that dwarf the imagination.  Mars is the ideal base from which to launch mining operations in the Asteroid Belt.

In the long-run, bringing the Solar System into our economic sphere will allow us to solve our pressing energy and environmental problems, transforming our world from one of smokestacks and strip mines into the paradise that we all want it to be.  The economic expansion that will result will be sufficient to eliminate, rather than merely mitigate, the problems associated with world poverty.

-. Should the exploration of space be undertaken by the government or by private industry?

Both.  We believe that NASA should focus on what NASA alone can do, such as manned missions to the Moon and Mars, as well as continued robotic explorations of more distant worlds.  For the time being, there is little incentive for private industry to undertake such missions, so they must be done by the government.

But more routine missions, such as sending supplies and crews to the International Space Station, would be more efficiently undertaken by private industry.  A profit motive exists for such missions, and market forces will gradually reduce launch costs by promoting innovations in launch technology.

The government should direct NASA to focus on exploration, while encouraging private industry to invest in orbital space through tax incentives and by reducing regulatory barriers.  As time passes and NASA exploration of the Moon and Mars opens up those worlds, private industry should be encouraged to undertake their economic development.

-. Should space exploration be done by human missions or by robotic missions?

Again, both.  A comprehensive program of space exploration requires both human and robotic missions.  Robotic missions are cheaper, but the amount of scientific information they can return is vastly smaller than would be returned by a human expedition.  For example, the Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity have been stunning successes, but all the data they have gathered in more than four years could have been gathered by a human expedition over a few days.

More fundamentally, the human experience demands a human presence.  A robot can send back data on the composition of the soil or the atmosphere of another world, but it cannot truly express what it is like to be there.  No robot ever wrote a poem.

We believe that robotic missions are critical to the exploration of the Solar System and should be continued and expanded.  However, we also believe that robotic missions must be seen as the precursors to human expeditions.

­-. Does the organization lean towards Republicans or Democrats?

The Committee is strictly non-partisan.  We make no distinction between Republicans or Democrats, liberals or conservatives, or positions candidates may hold on any issue other than space exploration.  All candidates and office-holders who share the Committee’s vision of a robust and comprehensive space program will have our support.