On Thursday, February 18th, scientists and engineers waited anxiously at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, as their rover, Perseverance, lifted off from Florida’s Space Coast to embark on its journey to Mars.
Because the air on Mars is only 1% as thick as Earth’s, scientists and engineers employed a sky crane powered by rockets in place of a chute. In comparison to other Mars rover Curiosity, Perseverance is larger, heavier, and has more advanced search and landing technology. At 3:55 ET, the rover landed safely on Mars, and passed all initial health checks. Perseverance has already begun to provide audio recordings, take pictures, and work to bring rocks and other samples back to Earth. Simultaneously, Perseverance will begin searching for signs of microbial life in the deltas where water once flowed. This is really exciting news, because with these collections, scientists will be able to examine the climate and history of Mars, possibly bringing humanity one step closer to being able to step on the planet.
NASA is an agency of the U.S. federal government, specializing in aeronautics and space research/exploration. NASA not only generates billions of dollars in economic output per year, but also creates hundreds of thousands of jobs nationwide. Their investment in basic research and engagement in engineering challenges has resulted in positive externalities, which refer to when the production or consumption of a good brings benefit to a third party. In this case, these positive externalities lead to market failure, because the benefits are captured by private businesses in the form of a price, and there are side benefits an individual is getting, but not paying for. Historically, there has also been controversy over NASA versus the private sector, as private entrepreneurs encourage the eradication of governmental intervention, stating that “there are untold riches to be found in space; just unleash the profit motive and get the government out of the way.”
Additionally, because NASA is a government agency, presidential administrations play a large role in their ventures. For example, the culture of NASA greatly changed under the Trump administration. In 2018, the Trump administration put an end to NASA’s greenhouse gas monitoring system, and the Carbon Monitoring system (which measured the world’s flow of carbon dioxide) lost their funding. This not only compromised the ability to verify national emission cuts, but also posed a threat to the Paris Climate agreement. Many employees chose to work at NASA over a private sector for the good of the public, however, the threats that Trump posed to their budget on earth science and other climate missions compromised the quality of their work life, and many expressed disappointment during those years. A senior science editor who had been working at NASA's JPL for a decade, stated that 3 weeks into the Trump administration, after the EPA was shutting down climate communications, “It caused NASA management to panic. Scott Pruitt had been appointed to head the EPA and promptly removed the EPA’s climate-change website. NASA management seemed to fear a similar fate.” Additionally, he described his experiences working with NASA’s social media: “NASA Climate’s social media pages used to be vital mechanisms for keeping the public updated with factual information. During the Obama presidency, I live-tweeted and posted on Facebook in real time from science events, conferences, satellite launches and field campaigns. I posted up-to-date information on global climate events such as cyclones, floods, tornadoes and storms on evenings and weekends. Our satellite images showed up in art galleries and museums; our graphs and data were used at science events all over the world. But by the end of Trump’s term, NASA Climate’s social media presence had dwindled to almost nonexistent.” This experience, out of many, reveals to us just another example of how the Trump administration disregarded not only climate change, but also the broader field of science in general. While some say that the space exploration branch is one of the branches not left in shambles after the Trump administration, others say that Trump has left a mess behind for Biden to clean up (described as “uncertain plans, unproven cost assumptions, and limited oversight”). Shifts in NASA priorities and culture are still up in the air under the Biden administration, as we are not sure about his stances on the focus on space exploration versus earth science, as well as if he will be continuing the National Space Council (NSC), an executive branch advisory board that handles space policy matters. Thus, how do you think NASA’s culture might change from under Trump’s administration to Biden’s? Based on Biden’s previous interactions with NASA as a Delaware Senator, do you anticipate that he will prioritize space during his presidency? Also, should NASA remain a government agency, or should they transition to a private enterprise?
5 comments:
I think that NASA should remain part of the federal government as it helps citizens by interesting them in the STEM fields. By having a well known agency that focus on the STEM, it can inspire younger people to enter that field. I personally don't think that Biden will focus much on space during his presidency. Probably most of Biden's time will be spent repealing the actions of the trump administration in the domestic and international fields.
I think NASA could gain more support for missions like exploring Mars and the rest of our solar system rather than space mining/colonization/militarization which was one of the main focuses of the Trump Administration(US Space Force, Moon Mining, etc). I think that Biden will prioritize space exploration at least a bit, however he is clearly more devoted to more pressing matters such as solving the COVID pandemic and dealing with Climate Change. However, I believe that space funding is one of the things that is high on Biden's list. I think NASA should remain a government agency because for one we already have major powerful private space industries such as SpaceX that work well at being what they are, and allowing NASA as part of the government demonstrates that our government also cares about space exploration as much as private companies do. Also, NASA being a government agency does have to be more public, meaning that we get to see more activity without much being blocked, which will always be great for educational value and knowledge of our funding on space as a country as well as it having an impact on society(usually through watching launches and landings, like the Mars Rover landing the other day). Thank you for sharing!
I don't agree with critics who state that NASA is a form of government intervention that must be taken away to increase the opportunity for private sector businesses. In my experience, NASA is a huge -- and much-needed -- organizing force behind big expeditions and missions. For many missions, for example, it works with many private-sector businesses which each produce certain parts of a larger project. These parts both paid for by NASA and then assembled (for the large part) and organized by NASA as well. In other instances, it collaborates with businesses to bring STEM research goals/missions to fruition. One such example (with a very successful outcome) is the NASA Space-X collaboration. Here is a more detailed explanation of their collaboration: https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/489058main_ASK_40_space_x.pdf
NASA is an essential driving force not only in space exploration but multiple other fields extremely relevant to our society. For example, the NASA Ames Aviation Division is working to develop Urban Air Mobility (UAM) within the next decade to allow easier transportation for individuals. Thus, I believe in the importance and exigence of NASA.
Thank you so much for your insightful comments, Liam, Ben, and Harbani! I completely agree with all of your opinions— that NASA should remain a government agency, despite the possible dangerous influences that certain presidential administrations can have on it. The benefits of being public are tremendous, such as being transparent and informative, contributing to educational value. Being able to watch live footage of the Perseverance rover being launched and landing likely encouraged large numbers of citizens to take an interest in space exploration and the status of other Mars rovers. It’s also interesting to see NASA evolve as it collaborates with more and more private enterprises.
In my opinion, I predict we see a substantial shift in the projects NASA focuses on under the Biden Administration as compared to its duties and projects under Trump. Biden rejoining the Paris Climate Accord on his first day in office is a pretty strong message demonstrating the President's support of climate change and actions to prevent its further damage to the planet. Thus NASA's missions under this administration will definitely include more climate-focused agendas and hopefully will bring to light many ways that America can ultimately reduce its effect on the climate crisis. To address the second question and the other commenters perspectives, I too believe that NASA will stay a public governmental agency. Even with the rise of private space enterprises like Space X, I believe it will be in America's best interest to stay current in space exploration and possibly seek partnerships with the private sector, while nonetheless staying a governmental agency.
Post a Comment