NASA has been looking into the colonization of Mars since the 1950s. There have been multiple attempts and successes in travel to the “Red Planet”. These missions however, cost upwards of 100 billion dollars and have only consisted of orbiting and probe landings on Mars. NASA has never sent humans to Mars. Most taxpayers dislike the idea of increased funding because they will have to pay more money to the government that could be wasted on failed missions. On the other hand, space travel advocates argue that NASA does not actually use very much money and if more money was allocated for NASA then their missions would be more successful. Space travel proponents and opponents debate over whether NASA’s missions to Mars are too expensive or reasonable;
…show more content…
Understanding NASA’s funding/financial state and the plausible value of resources on Mars helps to determine the feasibility and economic benefits of traveling to and colonizing Mars, without using hypothetical costs of equipment that has never been used to bring humans to Mars before.
Regarding NASA funding, in 2012 the Obama administration created a new budget for NASA involving short and long term goals. Over time funding for NASA has decreased from around 4.41% of the total U.S. budget to .5% of the total budget (Miozzi). This 4.41% of funding to NASA was during the space race when NASA was able to accomplish the moon landing. Now, NASA has increasing trouble completing missions because of underfunding (Miozzi). Following the passing of Obama’s budget, multiple arguments were made for and against the budget changes. Specifically, George Landrith, the president of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, published an article for NASA which detailed his opposition to the newly created NASA budget plan. Landrith argued that although NASA’s budget had not been lowered, the priorities had been changed; …show more content…
These could counterbalance the cost of Mars colonization and return money to the United States and its economy. In Robert Zubrin and Richard Wagner’s book titled “The Case for Mars…” , Zubrin and Wagner explains how the “concentrated supplies of metals of equal or greater value than silver (such as… gold, palladium, iridium, rubidium, platinum…) were available on Mars” and “they could potentially be transported back to Earth for substantial profit” (239). These valuable resources can also be used by astronauts once on Mars to reduce the amount of money devoted to sending more supply ships to Mars. A published PR Newswire article further explains how “using resources from the planet [Mars] instead of bringing everything from Earth has the potential to save the agency more than $100,000 per 2.2 pounds” (“NASA Challenge Seeks”). Instead of sending multiple rockets throughout the time humans are colonizing, the humans could potentially uses the resources already provided on Mars to be somewhat self sufficient. Both using the available resources while on Mars and sending the resources back to Earth offers NASA the ability to earn back or save some of the money that was initially allocated for human travel to Mars. Potential natural resources provide an argument for increasing the NASA budget, so that money can be earned back from the use of these materials on Earth and on
Understanding NASA’s funding/financial state and the plausible value of resources on Mars helps to determine the feasibility and economic benefits of traveling to and colonizing Mars, without using hypothetical costs of equipment that has never been used to bring humans to Mars before.
Regarding NASA funding, in 2012 the Obama administration created a new budget for NASA involving short and long term goals. Over time funding for NASA has decreased from around 4.41% of the total U.S. budget to .5% of the total budget (Miozzi). This 4.41% of funding to NASA was during the space race when NASA was able to accomplish the moon landing. Now, NASA has increasing trouble completing missions because of underfunding (Miozzi). Following the passing of Obama’s budget, multiple arguments were made for and against the budget changes. Specifically, George Landrith, the president of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute, published an article for NASA which detailed his opposition to the newly created NASA budget plan. Landrith argued that although NASA’s budget had not been lowered, the priorities had been changed; …show more content…
These could counterbalance the cost of Mars colonization and return money to the United States and its economy. In Robert Zubrin and Richard Wagner’s book titled “The Case for Mars…” , Zubrin and Wagner explains how the “concentrated supplies of metals of equal or greater value than silver (such as… gold, palladium, iridium, rubidium, platinum…) were available on Mars” and “they could potentially be transported back to Earth for substantial profit” (239). These valuable resources can also be used by astronauts once on Mars to reduce the amount of money devoted to sending more supply ships to Mars. A published PR Newswire article further explains how “using resources from the planet [Mars] instead of bringing everything from Earth has the potential to save the agency more than $100,000 per 2.2 pounds” (“NASA Challenge Seeks”). Instead of sending multiple rockets throughout the time humans are colonizing, the humans could potentially uses the resources already provided on Mars to be somewhat self sufficient. Both using the available resources while on Mars and sending the resources back to Earth offers NASA the ability to earn back or save some of the money that was initially allocated for human travel to Mars. Potential natural resources provide an argument for increasing the NASA budget, so that money can be earned back from the use of these materials on Earth and on