UK United Kingdom

Space research pays for itself, but inspires fewer people

To say space research is a waste of money is wrong. For every US$1 put into US space agency, its citizens get US$10 as payback; in Japan and the European Union that amount is more than US$3. The growing…

Earthrise from moon, as seen by JAXA probe. JAXA, CC BY-NC-ND

To say space research is a waste of money is wrong. For every US$1 put into US space agency, its citizens get US$10 as payback; in Japan and the European Union that amount is more than US$3.

The growing private space industry is built around these government space programs and would not exist without them. The UK’s annual US$500m contribution to the European Space Agency (ESA) has catalysed the formation of the fastest growing industry. Its private space industry contributes US$15.2 billion a year to the economy. Similarly, Japan’s US$2.3 billion into the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) has enabled its private space industry to contribute US$31 billion.

Not only do space agencies pay for themselves directly, they create jobs and are boosting the global economy by US$300 billion annually through private industry.

The thousands of inventions and innovations spun out from space research have become an integral part of our daily life: weather forecasting, satellite television and communications, disaster relief, traffic management, agricultural and water management, and global positioning system (GPS), are but just a few.

As space research required bigger and bigger investment, the nature of international research changed. The space race became a space collaboration, which is symbolised by the International Space Station.

If nothing else, as Pete Worden, Centre Director of NASA Ames, told me, “Space is cool”. It inspires the new generation of kids.

The Apollo missions inspired a generation. The number of US graduates in the science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) subjects, from high-school through to PhD, has doubled. The relative growth rate since then has dropped drastically, even though the total number has gone up. Doubling a population’s scientific literacy when it is living in a world so dependent on science and technology was a good move, and it slung the US into the dominant position it has stood in for the past five decades.

How the “Apollo Buzz” affected education in the US.

While they still inspire, some would say today’s space agencies lack direction. Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, said, “Instead of pioneering new worlds like those explorers of the past, we have left our sailors in the harbour for half a century to see the health effects from doing so”.

The average annual expenditure of NASA during the Apollo Era was US$23 billion in today’s money. NASA’s average spend in the last decade was US$17 billion. Even with similar budgets, the progress made in the last decade is simply not comparable to what was achieved in the 1960s.

Space research has opened our eyes to real risks we face as a species: global warming, asteroids impacts, the vulnerable ozone layer, and even warnings about how our electronics would be affected by the sun.

Dreaming big

One way to push the speed of progress would be to make life multi-planetary. Visionaries such as Astronomer Royal Martin Rees believe explorers would have a human base on Mars by 2100. He claims that if do not spread soon this will be “our final century”.

Space agencies around the world are slowly converging on the grand challenge of sending a manned mission to Mars. Mars is the next logical step. Zubrin said, “The Moon is to Mars, what Greenland was to North America in the previous age of exploration”.

Mars has all of the resources required for a technological civilisation. With a 24.6 hour day, fertile soil, a CO2 rich atmosphere, and an abundance of water, the introduction of flora is a real near-term possibility. Transformation of the atmosphere into something more hospitable may not remain science fiction.

But it is no longer reasonable to just assume that the first human expedition to Mars will be carried out by astronauts from the US or Europe. As the late Jacob Bronowski once put it, “Humanity has a right to change its colours”.

Liu Yang, trained by the China National Space Administration, is one of ten Chinese astronauts to have travelled to space. CNSA

Through industrialisation, the economies of China and India have been doubling in scale every decade, and are forecast to overtake the US by 2023 and 2048 respectively. Though some are still resistant, the West has slowly begun to realise that if it does not take the next step for humanity, someone else will.

Some believe that a manned mission to Mars would a require multi-national collaborative effort, however Jean-Jacques Dordain, director general of ESA, has said:

Coupling this ever-growing obsession we in the West have with risk aversion, to the bureaucracy and difficulty of international collaboration, though I really want us to do it, such a mission would be impossible for us to achieve.

Two privately funded teams, Inspiration Mars and Mars One, are set on sending a manned mission either to or around Mars in the coming decade. But Elon Musk, who leads SpaceX, is worried that the real question is not who, but when. He wonders “for how long humanity will have the technical capability of sending people into and beyond orbit”.

Articles also by This Author

Sign in to Favourite

Join the conversation

7 Comments sorted by

  1. Kevin Denny

    logged in via Twitter

    The authors attempt at cost benefit analysis in the first two paragraphs is nonsense. Stick to engineering.

    1. Jeremy cavanagh


      In reply to Ashley Dale


      The numbers you put in this piece don't really add up with the statements you make so I have to agree with Kevin and I say this as both a space nut and having worked in manned space flight.

      Having said that I think your article touches on a very important point and that is how risk averse our society has become (as seen, paradoxically, in how we are dealing with climate change - a huge risk for which we balk at taking small risks in order to overcome this problem). To that end I very…

      Read more
    2. Mark D. Roberts


      In reply to Jeremy cavanagh

      I think that the costing has been pulled out of a hat, what do the figures include and exclude; also the time scale to put people on mars is a lot longer than most think, things will go wrong...

    3. Ashley Dale

      PhD candidate in Aerospace Engineering at University of Bristol

      In reply to Mark D. Roberts

      Jeremy: Maybe the confusion with numbers is to do with what the agencies bring to the economy directly, and then indirectly (by enabling others)? That should have been made clearer. Musk is doing a great job on the front you describe. I am hopeful to see his rapidly reusable boosters in action (Grasshopper Program -

      Mark: Check the links (blue font) detailing where the numbers came from, to see what they include/exclude, etc. With an 800-word limit, and a number of points/themes that needed addressing, there's only so much one can commit to each.

  2. Albert Rogers

    logged in via Facebook

    Sending people, or any un-sterilised vehicle or cargo, to Mars is just utterly wrong. There is not, as yet, sufficient proof that no life exists on that planet. What is nearly certain is that even if it's DNA/RNA based, it is very unlikely to use our Terran code. The fact that the same code translates base-triplet-codons to amino acids for protein synthesis for every organism ever yet found on Earth, is the proof of our common ancestry.Humans defecate, and I doubt that we can guarantee none of our bacteria will escape.
    The kind of space research that has been most worth doing has been done with non-human expeditions. I even suspect that the Hubble telescope could have been repaired by sending up a corrected duplicate, but the "men in space" was better television.

    1. Ashley Dale

      PhD candidate in Aerospace Engineering at University of Bristol

      In reply to Albert Rogers

      After the Viking program (1975) we stopped sterilising spacecraft, so we know for a fact that there are already Earth bacteria on Mars, alive but dormant. At the moment, this situation is reversible. We could go there and remove those spacecraft. Even then, our definition of sterile in practise is only to the level we can measure it -- it doesn't mean something is truly sterile.

      If there was an independent genesis of life on Mars, that would confirm to us that life is more likely the norm than…

      Read more