Monthly Archive

“Space…the final frontier…”
–Captain James T. Kirk

Since man first looked to the heavens, he has wanted to go there. To fly, to touch the stars, to break the ethereal bonds of Earth and ascend to glory. Since Daedalus turned his mind “to arts unknown” to escape the labyrinth of King Minos, up to the Apollo space program that first brought men from Earth to touch another celestial body, humanity has used the only—and best—tools available to achieve this lofty goal: the human mind and the human spirit.

But since that grand day in July of 1969, when we finally brushed the heavens and returned to tell the tale, we have let the dream wither on the vine, focusing less on exploration and ascension and more on the drudgery of near-Earth industry in the name of mere profit. It’s not enough; humanity’s destiny requires more. We need to once again turn our hearts and minds and spirit to the stars and seek our future beyond the gravity well of our own planet. We must be explorers, adventurers and dare ourselves to leave the cradle of Earth and make our homes in the cosmos around us. We need to aggressively return to space.

The cost is not negligible. As found in On the Shoulders of Titans by Barton Hacker and James Grimwood, as well as the figures from The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology, the American space program from Mercury through Gemini and up to Apollo cost $20.5 billion dollars (387, 1 respectively). Adjusted from 1969 dollars to today’s rates that would come to $481.2 billion. That may sound like a lot of money, until one compares it to the outlay of funds for the current war in Iraq. As of March, 2008, costs of that conflict had reached $564 billion dollars in five years, according to Steve Schifferes in his article “The Iraq War: Counting the Cost” (par. 2). He also predicted that by the end of 2009 the war cost would reach $1 trillion (par. 4). What took NASA ten years of development, testing, and technological advancement to spend, the war in Iraq has more than taken up in less than half that time. Removal of our troops, materiel, and bases from that region would free
up more than enough to duplicate the Apollo program from its inception.

Of course, we don’t have to. The technology already exists and requires only refinement and enhancement. NASA’s current space program, Constellation, is based largely on designs derived from the development of the Apollo program forty years ago and technologies refined and honed under the current Space Shuttle program. That greatly mitigates the cost of a renewed program to reach the moon and, after, the other planets of our solar system.

Additionally, we can enlist the help of the rest of the world. International cooperation in space-based endeavors is not unheard of: the International Space Station (ISS) stands as testimony to the possibility of such a joint venture, and the European Space Agency (ESA) is a cooperative space agency with 19 different contributing member nations.

However, despite the possibilities of mitigation and cooperation, many people point out that the ambitious goals of the Constellation program, i.e. return to the Moon, establish a continuous human presence there, and proceed from the Moon on to Mars, will not show short-term profitability. And they are right.

There are some short-term gains to be made. Throughout the 1960’s the American space program employed 400,000 people (Chaikin, viii). In the first half of 2009 America lost 467,000 jobs, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Wouldn’t it be nice to gain some of those jobs back in a short time?

But we must remember that it was the pursuit of short-term profitability that led to the slips in safety standards that resulted in the catastrophic failures of the Challenger shuttle in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. In Challenger’s case, an overly ambitious launch schedule, aimed towards showing the shuttle program as a viable money-making endeavor, led to a NASA culture of “launch at any cost”. In Challenger: A Major Malfunction, Malcolm McConnell noted that “In order for NASA to keep the confidence of its commercial, civil-government, and military customers…NASA’s credo had become ‘Fly out that manifest’” (65). Similarly, the Columbia Accident Investigation Board stated that “during the course of [the Columbia] investigation, the Board received several unsolicited comments from NASA personnel regarding pressure to meet a schedule” (Gehman et. al. 131).

NASA needs to take a longer view, obviously. The profits from space require investments of time as well as money to retrieve, develop, and exploit.

But there are profits to be had. Helium-3 is a much cleaner fuel for fusion reactors than deuterium and tritium, with little to no dangerously radioactive heavy neutrons released in the process. Helium-3 is incredibly rare on Earth, but naturally occurring in massive quantities on the Moon. In 1993, W.M. Braselton, Jr., vice-president of the Harris Corporation said in an address to the United States Space Foundation that “One space shuttle load of twenty-five metric tons [of helium-3] will electrically power the U.S. for one year. It would have a market value of seventy-five billion dollars today and there is in excess of one million tons on the Moon” (qtd. in Burrows 627). Similarly, Robert Zubrin in “The Case for Colonizing Mars” tells us that there is roughly five times the amount of the rare isotope deuterium on Mars as there is on Earth. “Its current (1996) value on Earth is about $10,000 per kilogram, roughly fifty times as valuable as silver or 70% as gold” (par. 10). Near-Earth asteroids offer large amounts of platinum, which is not only a precious metal for jewelry, but a valuable component of super-conductors and super-conductive circuits for advanced computers. They also provide millions of tons of nickel and iron ores, used in many industrial and manufacturing processes and products, ranging from stainless steel and rechargeable batteries to simple wrought iron and common steel used in most building construction.

Besides monetary gains, other benefits can be imagined. According to a 2001 United Nations report on world population growth, the estimated “carrying capacity” of Earth is, on average, 10 billion people (40). A separate United Nations report, World Population Prospects, The 2006 Revision, projects the world population by 2050 to reach 9.2 billion people (9). Colonization of the solar system is an obvious solution. In The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, 3rd Ed., Gerard O’Neill postulates that the material found just in the asteroid belt, let alone the Moon and Mars, would be enough to fashion habitable areas 3,000 times the habitable areas of Earth (113). With appropriate recycling and solar power generation technologies, these habitations would be self-sustainable for hundreds of years.

Others believe in the terraforming of other worlds, specifically Mars. “Terraforming” refers to the process of taking an inhospitable world and making it more Earth-like and capable of easily sustaining human life. The Spirit and Opportunity probes have found significant metallic and mineral deposits on the Red Planet, and orbital surveys of Mars reveal extensive water icecaps at the poles. Robert Zubrin, an aerospace engineer and manned-mission-to-Mars advocate states “It is the richness of Mars that makes the Red Planet not only desirable, but attainable” (qtd in Burrows 644). Quoting a report by Synthesis Group, a think-tank headed by former astronaut Thomas Stafford, Burrows writes “Space is a unique store of resources: solar energy in unlimited amounts, materials in vast quantities from the surfaces of the Moon and Mars, gases from the Martian atmosphere, and the vacuum and zero gravity or space itself. With suitable processing, these raw resources are transformed into useful products” (627).

Scientific research can be further advanced via aggressive expansion into space. Spurred by a need to refine industrial processes to maximize sustainability and increase profitability over time, money would have to be allocated to the types of low- or zero-gravity experimentation that are currently being performed in small scale aboard the ISS and the scientific missions of the space shuttle. Crystal growth, health effects of zero gravity…increased experimentation in fields like these can only enhance our understanding of material sciences, the universe at large and our own selves.

But beyond benefits both material and educational, there are, believe it or not, spiritual benefits.

Mankind has always felt the urge to explore and expand the boundaries of humanity’s reach and knowledge. From the global explorations of Magellan and Columbus to the incredible voyage from the Earth to the Moon of Armstrong, Aldrin and all who followed them, we have ever striven to move further, fly higher, and know more. It is in our nature, our hearts and our souls. As John F. Kennedy said in 1962 at Rice University “We choose to go to the moon….Not because [it is] easy, but because [it is] hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept…” (qtd. in Chaikin 2).

Many involved in the space program, past and present, advocate an aggressive return to space. Apollo astronaut Ken Mattingly, the ninth man to walk on the Moon, says “We will go to Mars. And who knows what they will find? Once again it will be the journey that is the true test, as much as what you learn when you get there” (ibid. 579). In regard to returning to the Moon, in his book Failure is Not an Option former NASA flight director Gene Krantz says simply: “Our work is unfinished” (384).

The space shuttle program is scheduled to perform its last mission in 2010 with the completion of STS-134.

“It is good for the human spirit to explore beautiful places,” says astronaut Dave Scott, commander of Apollo 15 (Chaikin 403). We need it, for our knowledge, for our economies, for our future…and for the illumination of our very souls.

We need to choose to go back to the moon.

Works Cited

Apollo Program Budget Appropriations. The Apollo Spacecraft: A Chronology. 3 August 2009.

Burrows, William E.. This New Ocean. New York: Random House, Inc. 1998.

Chaikin, Andrew. A Man on the Moon. New York: Penguin Books. 1994.

Gehman, Jr., Adm. (Ret.) Harold, and Maj. Gen John L. Barry, Brig. Gen. Duane W. Deal, James N. Hallock, Ph.D., Maj. Gen. Kenneth W. Hess, G. Scott Hubbard, John M. Logsdon, Ph.D., Douglas D. Osheroff, Ph.D., Sally K. Ride, Ph.D., Roger E. Tetrault,, Stephen A. Turcotte, Steven B. Wallace, Sheila E. Widnall, Ph.D. Columbia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume 1. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 2003.

Glenn, John and Nick Taylor. John Glenn: A Memoir. New York: Bantam Books. 1999.

Hacker, Barton and James Grimwood. On the Shoulders of Titans. NASA Special Publications. 1977. 3 August 2009.

Kranz, Gene. Failure is not an Option. New York: Simon & Schuster. 2000.

McConnell, Malcolm. Challenger: A Major Malfunction. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc. 1987.

O’Neill, Gerard K. The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space, 3rd Ed. Ontario, Canada: Apogee Books. 2000.

Schifferes, Steve. “The Iraq War: Counting the Cost.”, BBC News, 19 March 2008. 2 August 2009.

World Population Monitoring, 2001. New York: United Nations. 2001. 4 August 2009.

Zubrin, Robert. “The Case for Colonizing Mars.” Ad Astra. July/August 1996. 4 August 2009.

This was a paper I did for my Composition Lab. It’s short, I admit; hey, I had a pretty hefty workload, no time to mess around extending things just to extend them. But I thought there were some pretty good ideas in it, so I submit it to you, my readers, for consideration.

“Globalization” generally refers to a movement to help emerging nations develop their economies and infrastructures so they can enter the global market as valid competitors. This goal is exceptionally important to future generations. Improved markets and infrastructures usually lead to improved quality of life. If nations are engaged in open and profitable trade, the tendency for those nations to wage war on one another is reduced. Overall, globalization is a noble goal that can improve the situation of everyone on the planet. However, the current methodologies employed to bring developing nations into the global market are often lacking and lead to worse financial problems for the nations involved. There are three primary means for emerging nations to receive funds for trade and infrastructure improvement: International Financial Institutions (IFIs), corporate investment and development, and commercial loans. All three, either separately or in conjunction with one another, have led to a repeating pattern of economic crises in recent decades. Clearly, a new paradigm must be introduced with an eye towards removing the inherent flaws of the current system.

Many people like to leave globalization efforts and development of emerging nations to private corporations. Private corporate development offers many apparent advantages: a corporation does not impose economic reform as a condition of bringing funds into the country; they do not ask for human rights or environmental reforms, which some developing countries’ governments may interpret as a threat to that government’s sovereignty; there are no political considerations to a corporation’s investment that may be ideologically opposed to an emerging nation’s governing ideology. To many nations, this sounds like free money and jobs. Micah Akuzue states in his article “The US in Global Context” that corporations benefit in turn from such foreign investment by increasing their workforce, either in their home countries, or by outsourcing many jobs to developing nations (21).

This, however, ignores the reality that corporations are, by definition, self-serving entities. Their overwhelming responsibility is to their shareholders. Micah Akuezue contends that a company that has invested in a developing country would be forced by market forces and a desire to stay competitive against other corporations to re-invest in a developing country in which they have a stake (22). This position seems to ignore characteristics of corporations and their philosophy. A corporation has primary responsibility to its shareholders and no one else. Employees, customers, governments and local populace are all secondary in a corporation’s considerations. Shareholders are notoriously short-sighted. If a corporation’s investment in a developing country does not profit quickly and measurably, its shareholders will demand an explanation; if they are not satisfied with that explanation, they will command the corporation to shift its policy and cut its losses. This often has devastating and debilitating effects on the economy of a developing nation as that nation suddenly loses a promised stream of income upon which it was basing improvement projects. It also has to cope with half-finished improvements that have left the infrastructure in disarray.

Corporations are not interested in human rights; in fact, the lack of human rights enforcement may make a developing nation more attractive to a corporation seeking to expand or move its operations. A major incentive for a corporation to invest overseas is the ability to maximize profits by paying local workers lower wages. Lack of workplace standards lead to “sweatshop” environments, which, while morally reprehensible, can be extremely profitable for a company. A company can pay sweatshop workers less money and force them to work longer hours than they would for a first-world workforce. As Alexander Reynolds states in “Between Theory and Fact: Free-Trade Theory and Free-Trade Agreements,” “Sometimes it is exactly a countries’ poor records of protecting such things that allow them to offer a competitive advantage in terms of productive efficiency” (par. 5).

In contrast there are organizations like the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank. Created near the end of World War II, these institutions’ aims were, respectively, to adjust and regulate current-account imbalances and manage currency exchange rates and to provide funding for the post-war reconstruction of Europe. These IFIs offer conditional low-interest loans to developing nations, along with advice on how best to change macroeconomic, structural, and human rights policies to better place the developing country in a competitive market position. Their goals are to enhance emerging nations’ infrastructures, economic policies, and market viability with an aim of promoting free and fair trade throughout the world and raising the standard of living for all citizens of all nations. However, the methods these IFIs employ are toothless and ineffective. There is no formal oversight to guarantee that economic policies are revised in line with the conditions of the loans, and there is no way to enforce any of those conditions is met, aside from withholding of funds. This is seen as undesirable by the IMF and World Bank as sustainable projects are considered “successes” even if they mean continued funding of the failing nation, whereas cancellation of funding is often viewed as “failure.” Allan Meltzer brings to light the example of Mexico in the mid-1990s in his article “What’s Wrong with the IMF? What would be Better?” The IMF continued to lend Mexico money, even though those funds were not being used for any of the usual improvement projects; instead, the money was being used to pay high-interest commercial loans that Mexico had taken from private lending institutions. The sole reason the IMF sent more money to Mexico was to guarantee that foreign lenders were protected from the risk of Mexico defaulting on its expensive loans (par. 27).

The lack of ability to enforce conditions, in conjunction with a reluctance to appear to “fail” renders these institutions largely ineffective in meeting their stated aims. Often this leads to “moral-hazard lending”. “Moral hazard arises when the private risk to the lender is less than the risk borne by society,” states Meltzer (par. 39). It may seem ironic, but these institutions, founded on “moral” principles for “moral” reasons, are largely subject to “moral hazard”. It seems clear that these IFIs, on their own, are not the answer to effective globalization. Another way is needed.

Leaving out corporations and IFIs, what alternatives are left? Commercial loans are the same as corporate investment without the added bonus of development and with the added downside of punishingly large interest rates. Direct national lending from one country to another poorer country is undesirable as any funding coming directly from a richer nation is almost guaranteed to be burdened with conditions. These conditions may regard economic reform, governance, and possibly even extend into areas such as defense. The receiving nation would undoubtedly view these conditions as colonial in nature and a threat to the debtor nation’s sovereignty. Additionally, Joseph Montgomery points out in “Globalization as Modern-Day Colonialism” that “[t]hose with the power to make the rules will, except in rare cases, make rules which favor their own continued control and prosperity, as well as break rules without consequence, at the expense of those without power” (par. 2). What nation or government would willingly and knowingly put themselves in such a position of disparate power?

The answer may lie in the formation of a “third party” agency, the goal and aim of which would be the management of funds and projects for developing nations. Funds for improvement projects would not be left in the hands of a possibly corrupt or incompetent government; rather, the funds would be directly controlled by the third-party managing agency to guarantee that they would be spent wisely and correctly. Projects would be implemented by carefully screened contractor companies who would be paid from the agency’s funds. Those funds would be provided by the IFIs, as before, but those institutions and their member nations would be assured that the funds were being used as they were intended, and could more easily rely that those funds would be repaid by a country that had improved its’ viability and competitiveness in the global market. Rigid enforcement would still be an issue, naturally, as any agency would lack any real “stick” to back up a financial “carrot”, but this agency would not be so married to a faulty concept of “success” that it would continue to fund projects if the conditions were not being met. It would be more willing to withdraw the funds and return them to the IFIs in the event the developing country failed or refused to comply with necessary modifications to economic policy, human rights laws, and infrastructure improvement.

Globalization is important for our future. The more countries available to freely and readily trade on a global market, the more resources are available throughout the world. The more countries are involved in mutually beneficial trade, the less likely those countries will engage in deadly warfare with one another. But globalization cannot reliably be implemented through corporations with their short-sightedness and lack of interest in enhancing the most valuable resource on the planet– people. And it should not be left to fangless and craven lending institutions who meekly continue to hand money to emerging nations even when it is glaringly apparent that those nations are losing that money without meeting even the most basic conditions necessary to meet the obligation implicit in acceptance of those funds: to improve themselves and their citizens’ lives so that they can, in turn, contribute to the world’s markets and resource availability. No, another way must be found. The world is too important to leave things as they are.

Works Cited
Akuezue, Micah. “The US in Global Context.” Contemporary Political Issues. Apr. 2008: 21-23.

Meltzer, Allan. “What’s Wrong with the IMF? What would be Better?” Hoover Institution Public Policy Inquiry International Monetary Fund. Fall 1999. 24 June 2009 .

Montgomery, Joseph. “Globalization as Modern-Day Colonialism.” Free Green World. 7 June 2008. 24 June 2009 .

Reynolds, Alexander. “Between Theory and Fact: Free-Trade Theory and Free-Trade Agreements.” Theories versus Realities. May 2008. 24 June 2009