IS WATNEY WORTH IT? [1]
The Apollo program, which first landed humans on the moon, closed in 1972 and since then there have been no manned space flights to our lunar neighbor. In 2017, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) began the Artemis program which has reinvigorated the public’s excitement for space exploration. In Artemis I, an Orion module successfully orbited the moon. Artemis II, set to launch in November of 2024, will be a ten-day mission around the Moon and back with a crew of four astronauts. However, the enormous cost of sending four people to the moon has caused some to balk. The projected cost of the mission from 2012 to 2025 is $93 billion, and the price-tag raises concerns about how best to spend public funds.
According to Mike Sarafin, the lead flight director for Exploration Flight Test-1, “Together, these test flights will demonstrate the capabilities we need to land humans on the Moon and enable long-term missions for decades to come. We will take the experience gained exploring the Moon to prepare for the next giant leap to Mars.” Such capabilities include the performance of life support systems, such as providing crew members with breathable air and carbon dioxide removal, along with ensuring optimal performance of the communication and navigation systems of the Orion.
The exploration of space has led to many discoveries with terrestrial benefits, including cordless drills, the laptop computer, UV water purification, efficient insulation, and many more. These innovations tied to space exploration have been economically beneficial and made our existence on Earth more comfortable. Further, the exploration of asteroids, the moon, and other planets for resources raises the exciting prospect of nearly limitless resources and possible new frontiers to explore or even inhabit. Some hope to mitigate this expensive governmental endeavor by outsourcing or partnering with private enterprises to gain competitive efficiencies.
Critics maintain that even more efficient space programs would still be expensive. Given the high cost of solving problems related to carbon emissions and sustainable food production, it may be that the costly space program is an inefficient use of our scarce resources. If the needs of humanity are paramount, we are faced with the question of whether these needs are best met by investment in the exploration of space.
However, many argue that our planet is already too far gone and we should look beyond our Earth for new homes. One of the long-term goals of NASA and other space agencies is to land on Mars, a planet many scientists have coveted as a possible second home for humans due to its similarity to Earth’s gravity and stores of water. By investing in Artemis II and subsequent missions that are predicated on its success, we will be able to study Mars and possibly find ways to terraform its surface making it habitable for humans.
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Do agencies like NASA have an obligation to maintain transparency and engage the public in decision-making regarding the allocation of funds for space exploration projects? Why or why not?
Is it justifiable to divert resources toward space exploration and/or colonization efforts when pressing environmental issues exist on our home planet?
What are the ethical implications of shifting the onus of some space exploration efforts from government agencies like NASA to private enterprises, like SpaceX?
References
[1] A version of this case appears in the APPE Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl’s® 2023-2024 Regional Case Set. It is reproduced here with permission. For more information about APPE IEB®, please visit appeieb.org.
[2] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Apollo Space Program”
[3] Encyclopedia Britannica, “Artemis Space Program”
[4] Venditti, Bruno. “The Cost of Space Flight Before and After SpaceX.” Visual Capitalist.
[5] Hambleton, Kathryn. “First Flight With Crew Important Step on Long-Term Return to Moon.” NASA.
EXPLORE MORE CONTEXT
Article
Article