Space Exploration Debate

1. Get students to get into groups based on which one of the following they agree
with:

-­‐ In favor of sending both human and robotic missions to space

-­‐ In favor of only sending robotic missions to space
-­‐ Not in favor of space exploration
-­‐ Undecided

Let the students know that they can change groups at anytime during the debate, as
many times as they wish.

2. Give groups about 5 minutes to talk amongst themselves and decide which points
are the most important if they were to convince someone of their opinion.

3. Each group gets 2 minutes to state their case (other groups cannot rebuttal until
all groups have gone).

4. The debate begins! How this goes will depend on the class. The students can just
talk amongst themselves (but step in if it gets too off topic, or certain students are
dominating the conversation, etc.). Another way is to get the students to put their
hands up when they have something to say, and you choose who talks next. It is
useful to put a time limit (30-­‐60 seconds) on how long they can talk for. Let the
debate go on for as long as time allows, but make sure there are 10-­‐15 minutes at
the end of class for a wrap-­‐up.

5. Interject information or ask questions as the debate goes on if someone is way off
base on something or if there is something important that hadn’t been covered yet.
Try your best, though, not to influence the students.

6. Makes notes of points that were brought up often (typically economics, humans
vs. machines, other things (social programs, health research) are more important,
etc.)

7. Wrap-­‐up the debate by providing information regarding the points that were
brought up often (what percentage of American budget goes to NASA; spin-­‐off
technologies; collaboration between humans & robots, we need to find somewhere
to live when Earth “explodes”, etc.). Write down a table with pros and cons of space
exploration. Let the students know that this topic is continually under debate
among scientists.

Page 1 of 14
Resources:
NASA receives about $18-­‐19 billion per year
(http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html), which is about 0.5% of the
American budget ($3.82 trillion -­‐
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/index.html)

Spin-­‐off technologies:
http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/nasacity/index2.htm
Book: Down to Earth: How space technology improves our lives (ESA)

Some Pros/Cons from

http://www.idebate.org/debatabase/topic_details.php?topicID=91:

Pros Cons
Mankind must always struggle to expand High ideals are all well and good, but not
its horizons. The desire to know what lies when they come at the expense of the
beyond current knowledge, the curiosity present. Our world is marred by war,
that constantly pushes at the boundaries of famine, and poverty; billions of people are
our understanding, is one of our noblest struggling simply to live from day to day.
characteristics. The exploration of the Our dreams of exploring space are a luxury
universe is a high ideal - space truly is the they cannot afford. Instead of wasting our
final frontier. The instinct to explore is time and effort on macho prestige projects
fundamentally human; already some of our such as the space programme, we must set
most amazing achievements have taken ourselves new targets. Once we have
place in space. No-one can deny the sense addressed the problems we face on Earth,
of wonder, world-wide, when for the first we will have all the time we want to
time a new man-made star rose in the sky, explore the universe; but not before then.
or when Neil Armstrong first stepped onto The money spent on probes to distant
the moon. Space exploration speaks to that planets would be better invested in the
part of us which rises above the everyday. people of our own planet. A world free
from disease, a world where no-one lives in
hunger, would be a truly great
achievement.

Page 2 of 14
The exploitation of space has directly Satellite technology has of course had a
changed our world. Satellites orbiting the beneficial effect on our world. However,
Earth allow us to communicate there is a huge difference between
instantaneously with people on different launching satellites into Earth orbit, and
continents, and to broadcast to people all exploring space. Missions to other planets,
over the world. The Global Positioning and into interstellar space, do not
System allows us to pinpoint our location contribute to life on our planet. Moreover,
anywhere in the world. Weather satellites satellites are largely commercial - they are
save lives by giving advance warning of launched by private companies, and are
adverse conditions, and together with other maintained by the profits which they lead
scientific instruments in orbit they have to. True space exploration could never be
helped us understand our own world better. commercial, and requires huge government
Research into climate change, for example, subsidies - the Voyager missions alone cost
would be almost impossible without the just under $1 billion. This money could be
data provided by satellites. much better spent elsewhere.

Space exploration has also led to many These spin-off advantages could come
indirect benefits. The challenge and from any ‘blue-sky’ project - they are a
difficulty of the space programme, and its result of the huge amounts of money and
ability to draw on some of the finest minds, manpower devoted to the space
has brought about great leaps in programme, giving people the resources
technology. The need to reduce weight on they need to solve problems, rather than a
rockets led to miniaturisation, and so to the result of the programme itself. For
micro-chip and the modern computer. The example, many of the leaps forward in
need to produce safe but efficient power- miniaturisation were in fact the result of
sources for the Apollo missions led to the trying to build better nuclear missiles; this
development of practical fuel-cells, which is not a good reason to continue building
are now being explored as a possible future nuclear weapons. It would be far better to
power-source for cleaner cars. The effects devote similar resources to projects with
of zero-gravity on astronauts has worthier goals – for example cancer
substantially added to our knowledge of the research, or research into renewable energy
workings of the human body, and the sources. These too could have many spin-
ageing process. We can never know off benefits, but would tackle real
exactly which benefits will emerge from problems.
the space programme in future, but we do
know that we will constantly meet new
obstacles in pursuit of our goals, and in
overcoming them will find new solutions to
old problems.

Page 3 of 14
Space exploration is an investment in the Space exploration is a waste of resources.
future. Our world is rapidly running out of If we wish to tackle the problems of over-
resources. Overpopulation could become a population, or of the depletion of resources,
serious worldwide threat. In this position, it we must deal with them on the Earth
would be foolish to ignore the vast instead of chasing an elusive dream. There
potential of our own solar system – mining are practical ways in which we can deal
resources on asteroids or other planets, or with the problems of our planet, and we
even the possibility of colonising other must pursue them with all the resources
worlds. If we fail to continue to develop and all the political will we have available.
the ability to take advantage of these
possibilities, we may in the future find it is
too late.

Debate: Funding for space exploration

From:
http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Funding_for_space_exploration

Should governments prioritize spending on the exploration of space?

Background and context:

From the moment that the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957 the aim of the
space race was to be the first to go where no man had gone before. Yuri Gagarin
became the first man in space on 12th April 1961 and over the next couple of
decades astronauts and cosmonauts battled to break records and frontiers. Yet since
Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon on 22nd July 1969 man’s conquest of space has
slowed. By the late 1970s both the USA and USSR had given up on travelling to the
Moon, let alone Mars, and were focused on creating a permanent presences in the
near-­‐Earth space stations Mir (USSR) and Skylab (USA), both of which have now

Page 4 of 14
been replaced by the International Space Station. The end of the Cold War led to
massive budget cuts and NASA was forced to adopt a ‘Quicker, Faster, Cheaper’
approach which focused its efforts on robotic exploration. After China’s success in
sending Yang Liwei into space in October 2003 and a second Space Shuttle disaster
in February 2003, US President George W. Bush echoed President Kennedy in
pledging NASA to manned exploration and an eventual trip to Mars. Yet some
commentators claim that man is an unnecessary (and costly) distraction from
scientific exploration and that we would be better off staying on Earth. They add
that since Dennis Tito became the first ‘space tourist’ in 2002 and the privately built
$20m SpaceShipOne won the X Prize in 2004 by entering suborbital space twice in
five days, the future lies with privately run space tourism with state funding limited
to unmanned scientific missions.

Exploration: Is space an important frontier for human

exploration/inspiration?

Yes
• Space exploration is inspiring No
and pushes humans to advance • There is sufficient room for
"Space exploration is not a waste exploration on earth; space is
of money". Science Ray. Sep. 30th, excessive. Rather than probing
2007 -­‐ "The curiosity of humans Mars for life, we should be
leads us to do many things. It is looking to the 95% of the world’s
probably the reason for outer oceans that have yet to be
space research. The evidence that explored and where we are
has been gathered supporting constantly finding new forms of
interesting information has just life and new scientific discoveries.
fuelled this curiosity. Curiosity is For example, bacteria have been
the root to all sciences. found which survive not by using
Archaeology, biology, chemistry, sunlight as an energy source, but
physics and many other braches volcanic vents on the ocean floor
of science were only done – a discovery which made
because of curiosity. Without scientists looking for life on Mars
curiosity, the human race might totally change their approach.
still be in the Stone Age. Isaac And with individuals constantly
Newton was curious about the in the news for attempts to
falling apple and why it fell. Big traverse the globe in rowing
curiosity has made us do big boats, hot air balloons and tied to
things. Space exploration might gliders, there are clearly enough
lead to a good thing too!" ‘boundaries’ on this planet to
• Space exploration inspires keep even our keenest explorers
children to study science (an happy.
investment)

Page 5 of 14
Science: Does space exploration benefit science, human understanding?

No
• The scientific benefits of
manned space programmes are
severely overstated; NASA
spends over a third of its budget
simply keeping the ISS manned
and the Space Shuttle working.
The vast majority of its spending
on scientific research comes
through ground based research,
telescopes and unmanned
Yes missions. China has made no
• Manned space-­flight has claims that there is a scientific
spawned many scientific benefit to its manned mission and
innovations. The need to make nor has Russia in recent years.
equipment ‘fail-­‐safe’ because of • Few missions to space have
its role in keeping humans alive produced notable scientific
in space means that the level of results. There are few
funding and testing is necessarily experiments so important that
higher than for non-­‐manned they can justify the huge cost
missions. This has resulted in needed to allow them to be
advances that have included the carried out by humans in zero
Teflon found on non-­‐stick frying gravity. NASA made a lot of noise
pans, new ways of testing about growing zero-­‐gravity
aerodynamics which have protein crystals as a potential
improved planes, huge cure for cancer when it was
improvements in computing trying to justify building the ISS
power and software, etc. but has since dropped the claims
as experiments have shown the
claims were overstated.
• Going into space to discover
the effects of space on humans
is circular logic. The argument
that humans need to be in space
in order to find out the effects of
being in space should be treated
with caution; it is essentially a
circular argument as with no
manned missions, there would be
no need to find out the impact of
space on humans.

Page 6 of 14
Funding: Should space exploration be publicly funded?

Yes No
• Space exploration pays for • The costs of pushing the
itself by inspiring funders. boundaries in space are too
• Public funding is necessary to high. Even with a budget of
achieve real results in space. $16.5bn for 2006, NASA expects it
While the private market may be will take more than a decade to
able to cater for the rich few who return to the moon and has no
want to see sub-­‐orbital space date for Mars. The cost of really
(and some 11,000 have signed up pushing the boundaries of human
to fly there with Richard exploration is too high even for
Branson’s Virgin Galactica from the big-­‐spending Bush
2007), ultimately the boundaries administration, so surely we need
of science involve keeping to examine the scientific and
humans in space for long periods technological returns of the space
(the current record is 439 days), programme as it really is rather
travelling further, discovering than how it appears in Star Trek.
what the rest of our solar system • Space funding would be better
holds and, eventually, trying to spent helping people on earth
live on the moon or Mars. It is Dennis Kucinich, responding to
only through state subsidies that president Bush's 2004 space
such exploration is financially initiatives, said: "I also want to
possible. explore planet Earth and planet
• Space programs have relatively D.C."[1]
small budgets "Space • Private markets are better
exploration is not a waste of suited to invest in space
money". Science Ray. Sep. 30th, exploration What better way to
2007 -­‐ "Space exploration is not a colonise space than to leave it to
waste of money. In fact, USA the private market to develop the
spends only 1% of the budget on space tourism market to include
space exploration. If it was not space hotels and moon bases?
spent, instead of a poor person The success of the $10m X Prize
getting a dollar, he would get a at attracting interest and private
dollar and 3 cents. Does this investment in private space
make that much of a difference?" programmes has shown that
• Space exploration is more there is no need for the state to
valuable than some other be involved in space travel on the
human expenditures Virgiliu non-­‐science side. Given suitable
Pop. "Is Space Exploration Worth international safety standards (as
the Cost?". Space Daily. January were agreed on air travel in the
19th, 2005 -­‐ "many of the critics inter-­‐war period) it would
of the space programme on social transfer the investment and risk
grounds are "limousine liberals". away from the taxpayer as well as

Page 7 of 14
 They point the finger at the US producing the sort of space travel
government for wasting their tax that would really inspire the
money in space instead of human race – the sort that tens of
helping the poor, but they are not thousands of people would
feeling guilty for their own actually get a chance to take part
consumerist life style and for in.
their own scale of priorities. • Significant private capital can
For instance, this year, total pet-­‐ be raised for space exploration.
related sales in the United States Even if NASA is unwilling to fund
are projected to be $31 billion – a particular project does not
the double, almost to the cent, of mean it cannot take place – the
the $15.47 billion NASA budget. Beagle 2 project to search for life
An estimated $5 billion worth of on Mars was organised by British
holiday season gifts were offered scientist Professor Colin Pillinger
– not to the poor – but to the and raised a significant amount of
roving family pets – six times its ?50m cost from private
more than NASA spent on its own sources and sponsorship. The
roving Martian explorers, Spirit Beagle 2 never responded from
and Opportunity, who cost the the surface of the Red Planet but
American taxpayer $820 million the principle of scientific
both. Instead of providing a communities being able to raise
launch pad for the immorally sufficient capital for small
expensive shuttles, Florida can do unmanned missions has been
better and clothe the proven.
underprivileged -­‐ a genuine
alligator pet collar cost only $400
a piece."
• Space exploration has brought
many practical benefits to
humans
• Humans could benefit from
natural resources of other
planets
• Space exploration stimulates
economic activity and jobs on
Earth.

Planet: Does the human race need to be able to move to another planet?

Yes No
• Humans should not rely solely • The risk of us being wiped out
on Earth for their long-­term by an asteroid like the
future The potential damage dinosaurs is very very small. In
done by an asteroid or comet that any case unmanned missions

Page 8 of 14
 collides with the Earth could (missiles, satellite mounted lasers
range from the impact of the etc.) would probably be as
atomic bombing of Hiroshima to effective as any manned attempt
the complete destruction of all to divert an asteroid despite what
life on the planet. A manned films like Armageddon and Deep
mission might be necessary to Impact might suggest.
destroy or divert such an object • Humans should not bank on
before it reaches our planet. destroying the Earth and
There is also the potential for moving to another planet. As
other terrible damage to be done for the potential for us to mess up
to the Earth (whether through the Earth sufficiently to require
climate change, warfare or us to leave the planet, perhaps we
overcrowding), which could should work harder at looking
mean that as a race we would after this planet rather than
have no choice but to leave the looking for another one to
planet. In that situation, high damage.
levels of knowledge about human
space travel and the ability to
colonise Mars or other planets
would be essential.

Mars: Are missions to mars important, worth funding?

Yes No
• Even if 60% of Americans • 60% of Americans oppose
currently oppose funding a funding a mission to Mars. "Do
research on Mars, if a time for you think the US should fund a
evacuation ever comes no one Mars mission?" 60% said no.[2]
will be able to oppose the • Mars mission is not first in the
decision to evacuate Earth, thus list of priorities. There are
research on Mars should be made already enough problems at
mandatory. home into which the money could
• In case of the Earth being over be invested. As Patti Davis argued
populated or over polluted, Mars in 2004, the funding for the
can be used to restart civilization mission -­‐$750 billion-­‐ would
anew. Technology can always much better be used in
help make humans adaptable to alternative energy research and
Earths climate. fighting climate change. [3]

Robots: Should people be flown to space instead of robots?

Yes No
• Humans are able to make • Some spin-­off technology will

Page 9 of 14
 judgments in space exploration come from unmanned space
and testing. There is a travel as easily as from manned
distinction between collection of space travel (e.g. rocket
data and interpretation of data. technology, robotics, computing
Robots are very good at power etc.), and one should bear
collecting data but not good at in mind that most manned space
responding to that data and programmes are centred on
acting flexibly on it. under-­‐funded programmes using
• Robots are inefficient at old technology due to budgetary
collecting data. The most constraints (Russia), low
flexible robots yet to leave Earth, technological development
the Mars Rovers, could only (China) or focused on repetitive
travel a few metres and test some operations (USA) which do not
nearby rocks. Humans on the involve significant funding into
Moon were able to travel new technologies. As a result of
significant distances, selectively space programmes often being
choose rock types from a variety closely linked to the military (in
of locations and prioritise China it is a division of the
experiments based on the results military), the spin-­‐offs that are
they received as they were on the sought are usually for military
Moon’s surface. Ideally scientists rather than consumer products,
would like to understand other and more likely to be kept secret
planets and bodies as well as they for exactly that reason. However,
do on Earth. This would require the problem with the spin-­‐off
huge numbers of experiments argument in principle is that
and surveys which would be investing in developing a non-­‐
much better done by long stick frying pan would surely be
manned missions or permanent cheaper than investing in a
scientific missions (as have been manned space programme which
posted to Antarctica for decades) produces Teflon as a side-­‐effect.
rather than a series of unmanned Where there are truly significant
missions over a decade. This also problems and areas in need of
applies to experiments carried technological advances either the
out in zero gravity onboard the state should fund research (as it
ISS or Space Shuttle, such as does in many ways through
attempts to grow protein crystals research grants, support for
or look at the impact of zero-­‐ universities etc.) or the free
gravity on the behaviour of market will step in and exploit a
organisms. market for a new technological
• Humans must be in space in solution to a problem.
order to test the impact space • Funding should only go to cost-­
has on them. Only by having effective robotic space
humans in space that we are able exploration "Mars Rising?". The
to find out what the impact of Economist. January 22, 2009.:
space does to their physiological "Luckily, technology means that

Page 10 of 14
 and psychological well being. man can explore both the moon
This makes future manned and Mars more fully without
exploration more possible as well going there himself. Robots are
as teaching us about humans. better and cheaper than they
Discoveries on bone and muscle have ever been. They can work
depletion during space travel tirelessly for years, beaming back
have helped in the care of data and images, and returning
bedridden patients and on how samples to Earth. They can also
to speed up the rate of muscle be made sterile, which germ-­‐
growth. infested humans, who risk
• Manned missions force space-­ spreading disease around the
craft to have greater weight-­ solar system, cannot."
bearing capacities for rocks. A
second reason why manned
experiments and exploration
would be more effective is that
any manned mission will
necessarily be heavier. This is
because it has to carry the weight
of humans and their life support
equipment. For this reason the
cost of returning samples or
carrying extra scientific
equipment will be more possible
because of the negligible weight
they add to the payload. This
means that even if the mission is
primarily about political
grandstanding, science will still
benefit. Compare the USSR’s
ability to bring back 321g of
lunar rock using robots with the
382kg brought back by the US
Apollo missions. The latter
proved the ‘giant impact’ theory,
told us a lot about the evolution
and geological change of the
Moon and our own Earth, and are
still being studied today.

International relations: Is sending humans to space good for international

relations?

Yes No

Page 11 of 14
 • Multinational space programs • Flag-­staking is occurring in
are good for international space and spread nationalistic
diplomacy. Since the “historic sentiments. Sending humans
handshake in space” when a US into space or to other planets so
Apollo and Soviet Soyuz capsules that they can erect the flag of a
docked in 1975, the two particular nation is a distinctly
countries have grown nationalistic act and one that is
increasingly close. This likely to create aggressive 'races'
relationship involves sharing in the future just as it has before.
technology (which is almost all China’s manned programme is
‘dual use’ i.e. it could be used for openly intended to challenge the
military purposes as well as US dominance of space for the
civilian, thus requiring a high Communist regime’s huge
degree of trust), scientific propaganda benefit. George W.
knowledge and working side-­‐by-­‐ Bush’s pledge to boost spending
side to build and support the ISS. on NASA and to restart the
With the involvement of the 11 manned mission to Mars
member states of the European programme was a direct
Space Agency as well as Canada, response. This is damaging not
Japan and Brazil in the project, only because of the potential for
space is one of the few spheres space race conflicts to escalate
where governments have been into greater international
able to put aside their differences hostility, but also because of the
in pursuit of something more way such races could result in the
fundamentally important to militarization of space (as several
humanity – surely something that Chinese hawks have called on the
we should continue. leadership to do), thereby turning
something which should be
preserved for the common good
of humankind into a neo-­‐colonial
battlefield.

Taxpayers: Should opponents of space exploration still be required to

contribute?

Yes No
• Individuals are not always • People should not be forced to
good at judging what is contribute towards something
beneficial in the long term. If they oppose. Even when people
people are told they do not have do not want to fund space travel,
to pay, they will probably choose they are currently forced to do so.
not to pay. This is despite the fact This is unfair as people should
that space travel has many have a choice on issues like this,
benefits which should be as not paying will not harm

Page 12 of 14
 supported with public money. anyone.
• People can be trusted to make
the right choices. When people
are given the choice of whether
they want contribute towards
space travel, they are likely to
choose the one that is best for
themselves and society, whether
space exploration or no space
exploration is a better choice.

Yes
• "Why are we wasting money in
space?". Everything2. August 1st,
2005
• "Space exploration is not a waste
of money". Science Ray. Sep. 30th,
2007
• Virgiliu Pop. "Is Space
Exploration Worth the Cost?". No
Space Daily. January 19th, 2005 • Reasons for opposition to space
• NASA exploration
• European Space Agency • Anne Applebaum. "Mission to
• Space Daily Nowhere". Washington Post.
• Chinese National Space January 7, 2004
Administration • "Mars Rising?". The Economist.
• Chinese Academy of Launch January 22, 2009.
Vehicle Technology
• Shuttle Press Kit
• Europe & Russia collaboration
• Reasons to support space
exploration
• "Mission To Nowhere?".
Transterrestrial Musings.

[Edit]
See also
• Debate: Mission to the Moon or Mars?
• Debate: Space exploration
• Debate: Colonization of the Moon
• Debate: Mission to Mars
• Debate: Should humans colonize outer space?
• Debate: Moonbase

Page 13 of 14
 • Debate: One-­‐way, one-­‐person mission to Mars
• Debate: Manned space flight
• Debate: Manned mission to Mars
• Debate: International space organization
• Debate: Value of NASA
• Debate: Colonization of Mars
[Edit]
External links
• NASA
• European Space Agency
• Space Daily
• X Prize
• Space.com coverage of SpaceshipOne
• China's manned space programme
• Chinese National Space Administration
• Chinese Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology
• BBC: Space Exploration
• BBC: Mars Exploration
• BBC web discussion
• Shuttle Press Kit
• NASA Budget
• Europe & Russia collaboration
• Political Base
[Edit]
Books
• Failure is Not an Option: Mission Control from Mercury to Apollo 13 and
Beyond : Gene Kranz
• China's Space Program: From Conception to Manned Space Flight : Brian
Harvey
• Advanced Space System Concepts and Technologies : Ivan Bekey
• Space Tourism: Adventures in Earth's Orbit and Beyond : Michel van Pelt
• We Have Capture: Tom Stafford and the Space Race : Tom P. Stafford
• The Story of the Space Shuttle : David M. Harland
• Space Tourism: Do You Want to Go? : Karen Rugg

Page 14 of 14