The 2013 proposed federal budget for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) that was released February 13 cuts funding by $59 million dollars from last year’s budget. The largest cuts will be seen in NASA’s planetary science program, which not only researches the intricacy and depths of our solar system but also observes and assesses global threats from meteors & asteroids, water & energy systems, and atmospheric changes. These cuts are detrimental to United States citizens, yet these same citizens remain ill-informed and inactive due to a lack of media coverage.
If we, as a nation, aren’t going to take responsibility for global climate change—because it points the finger at ourselves and requires reforming our gluttonous lifestyles—then why can’t we at least focus our attention on potentially catastrophic extraterrestrial threats? If nothing else, why doesn’t the government find it important enough to monitor these threats if only to ensure they still have a country to govern? Is it not the job of our federal government to protect us from both national and global threats, and if so why is it not more of a concern to fund NASA when it’s an educational program geared towards protecting the planet? Is it that our government officials are ignorant to these extraterrestrial threats, or are they simply choosing to ignore them for larger political gain?
These budget cuts could very well be a life or death matter, as they make it even more difficult to detect potentially threatening meteors. While a six to nine mile wide extinction-level meteor (the kind Hollywood makes cheesy and laughably inaccurate blockbusters about) only comes around every 100 million years or so, hundreds of smaller but still disastrous threats menace Earth every year. NASA and other space agencies have catalogued over 4,000 meteors with the potential to impact the planet over the past two decades, and over 1,700 of those classified as “large” with a diameter greater than 0.62 miles. Why are these “large” meteors such a threat if they’re barely one tenth the size required for human extinction? If a large extra-terrestrial body were to strike the U.S. or its bordering bodies of water (to say nothing of the rest of the world), it could cause massive tidal waves up to 3,000 feet tall to sweep across the coast and cause catastrophic devastation the likes of which human kind has never seen. Millions would perish, the already tenuous economy would collapse, and we would likely never recover.
The good news is that we have solutions to these threats. NASA not only observes potentially dangerous meteors, but also researches and plans methods for averting an impact disaster. The program has the ability to prevent a meteor from hitting the planet, so long as they are able to spot it in time. So, cutting their funding is not necessarily the best way to go if we plan on protecting not only our nation, but the world at large. We can all help be a solution to these threats by pressuring our government to support space and asteroid watch programs, and becoming independently informed on the threats to society that don’t make news coverage.
If we, as a nation, aren’t going to take responsibility for global climate change—because it points the finger at ourselves and requires reforming our gluttonous lifestyles—then why can’t we at least focus our attention on potentially catastrophic extraterrestrial threats? If nothing else, why doesn’t the government find it important enough to monitor these threats if only to ensure they still have a country to govern? Is it not the job of our federal government to protect us from both national and global threats, and if so why is it not more of a concern to fund NASA when it’s an educational program geared towards protecting the planet? Is it that our government officials are ignorant to these extraterrestrial threats, or are they simply choosing to ignore them for larger political gain?
These budget cuts could very well be a life or death matter, as they make it even more difficult to detect potentially threatening meteors. While a six to nine mile wide extinction-level meteor (the kind Hollywood makes cheesy and laughably inaccurate blockbusters about) only comes around every 100 million years or so, hundreds of smaller but still disastrous threats menace Earth every year. NASA and other space agencies have catalogued over 4,000 meteors with the potential to impact the planet over the past two decades, and over 1,700 of those classified as “large” with a diameter greater than 0.62 miles. Why are these “large” meteors such a threat if they’re barely one tenth the size required for human extinction? If a large extra-terrestrial body were to strike the U.S. or its bordering bodies of water (to say nothing of the rest of the world), it could cause massive tidal waves up to 3,000 feet tall to sweep across the coast and cause catastrophic devastation the likes of which human kind has never seen. Millions would perish, the already tenuous economy would collapse, and we would likely never recover.
The good news is that we have solutions to these threats. NASA not only observes potentially dangerous meteors, but also researches and plans methods for averting an impact disaster. The program has the ability to prevent a meteor from hitting the planet, so long as they are able to spot it in time. So, cutting their funding is not necessarily the best way to go if we plan on protecting not only our nation, but the world at large. We can all help be a solution to these threats by pressuring our government to support space and asteroid watch programs, and becoming independently informed on the threats to society that don’t make news coverage.
In her post, Here I am sitting on my tin can far above the Moon; Planet Earth is blue and there's nothing I can do, my classmate, Cheri Morris makes the argument that cutting NASA's budget is very, very dangerous to our future, because of the ever-present danger that we face from a possible asteroid impact.
ReplyDeleteShe begins by pointing out that the government is cutting NASA's budget, and then proceeds to argue that we should give them more money for finding asteroids and protecting Earth. While I agree with both the fact that asteroids are incredibly dangerous to us (not just as people, but as a species), and that we should not be cutting NASA's budget in any way, I also disagree directly with some of the conclusions she reached in her post.
First, while NASA's budget is indeed being cut, they are shuffling money around. As noted in various articles around the internet, such as this one from Slate (http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/04/11/nasa_budget_increase_for_asteroids_cuts_for_planets_and_education.html), NASA is actually spending more money on asteroid detection and collision prevention this year than they did last year, so that budget is not being cut.
I think that the true issue here is the programs that NASA is going to have to cut to be able to keep funding in areas deemed critical, such as the asteroid program. The article I listed above does a nice job of outlining the various areas that have been cut that should not have been.
These areas include planetary science (Trips to Mars, etc.), crewed missions (You know, actual humans in space...), and most importantly of all, education.
Cheri points out very directly that one of the biggest issues, one of the reasons that there's not more backlash against this cut, is that the public is uneducated. I completely agree on this subject. I subscribe to the belief that "Space is the final frontier", and that it is one of the most important topics to educate people about. Education funding should be critical, and one of the very last things to get cut in any circumstances.
Thus, while I agree that the budget cuts are bad, and that they are hitting NASA, I do not think the biggest issue is the danger of an asteroid strike--in part because the budget in that area was not actually cut--but rather education.
On the blog "Land of the Pleas and Home of the Craves," classmate Cheri Morris claims that cutting NASA's budget is harmful to the safety of US citizens and that too many people remain uneducated because of a lack of media attention. She goes on to say that within NASA, certain programs are receiving cuts, such as planetary science programs, water and systems, and atmospheric changes. These fields of studies are all necessary for the overall safety of not just America, but globally. I agree that NASA shouldn't reduce it's spending on programs as important as the ones listed. Detrimental is an understatement when considering the possible catastrophes that could occur as a result of a meteor strike or of a sudden rapid acceleration of global warming, which then we as humanity are responsible for the damage to the environment.
ReplyDeleteIf one considers the dangers that space poses to Earth's fragile ecosystem, then one could logically come to the conclusion that one of only two surefire ways to ensure our continuity as a species is to continue funded research into planetary defensive measures that we could employ when necessary. A moderate to severe budget cut could hinder NASA's ability to educate and research methods of protection. Furthermore, interplanetary travel and colonization of space and other planets, such as Mars, are the other ways to further our species by not limiting ourselves to one planet that may be the recipient of a future massive meteor impact. That situation could spell the end of humanity, as well as any and all life forms inhabiting Earth, so colonization outside of Earth is simply assurance of our survival.
I realize that the federal government needs to cut federal spending when necessary and that other nations have space programs that do research as well, but NASA has more importance than most people realize, and hindering this important agency is doing more long term harm than short term good when you look at the facts. People need to be educated on space and it's threats, as well as our harmful actions to the environment. People need to open their eyes to the dangers of space, and of our own actions, like global warming, and start focusing on what we can do to make sure we as a nation and as a species continue forward while experiencing little to no threats. And people need to realize that our existence isn't eternal and that even though there are no immediate catastrophic dangers present, humanity's lifetime is shortening every day that we don't advance our defenses against future meteor impacts or resolve the global warming problems.