Abstract
Artemis II’s successful launch, and NASA’s recently revealed plans for a base on the moon have reignited a long-running debate about whether the United States government should spend money on space exploration. After all, space is very expensive. Even though NASA’s budget makes up half a percent of the government budget, it still accounts for tens of billions each year. The United States has a responsibility to its citizens, evaluating spending is of vital importance to ensure money is being directed to the most impactful places. Technical research that lowers the cost of exploring space prevents NASA’s budget from ballooning, but simply because the budget can stay fixed does not mean it should. Whether to spend on space is a question that should be asked often.
Materials frequently used in the construction of space instruments are stronger in space than on Earth. Throughout the space age, spacecraft were built using the material properties at Earth’s conditions because they were sufficient. However, as scientific instruments have become more elaborate, the weight of payloads have increased. The technical research in this portfolio focuses on a project performed in collaboration with the University of Virginia Astronomy Department. The project’s goal was to build a device that can test materials at space-like conditions: near vacuum and a temperature of approximately 10K. With a more complete understanding of how the construction materials behave in space, unnecessary weight can be removed; future launches will be lighter and cheaper. Rather than create a device from scratch, the group adapted an existing cryogenic chamber. The chamber is designed to maintain the ideal conditions, so the adaptation was focused on designing an internal device that can apply sufficient stress to testing samples while remaining robust. The group successfully completed the design and fabrication of the material tester. Testing under vacuum has been performed and future testing at cryogenic temperatures will finalize the device for data collection.
Although NASA is involved in a diverse slate of services, a substantial part of its mission involves the pursuit of space science. Space is extremely hostile and restrictive; very few people have had the opportunity to be involved in space activity, science or otherwise. With so much to occupy scientific thinking on Earth, the decision to keep spending on space may seem unethical. This portfolio seeks to answer the question: Is the money the United States spends on space exploration by way of NASA justifiable? To investigate this claim, I reviewed well-documented conclusions about the economic and environmental impacts of space exploration. However, space advocates frequently refer to the possibilities that arise from settling space and exploiting its land and resources. Therefore, I took a long-term approach to space spending’s justification and concentrated on the arguments for and against settlement. Ultimately, pro-settlement arguments are not compelling enough to justify an aggressive spending approach to space. Instead, they prove better advocates for solar system and human survival research; such programs would retain most of the benefits of space exploration in its current form but would also build a strong foundation of knowledge on which a space settlement might one day rest.
Many would think it a shame to restrain our curiosity and remain grounded indefinitely. The stars hold a promise for many, and perhaps one day may be our home. Predicting the events of next year are difficult enough, much less the time scale on which Earth may have a settlement in space. While this portfolio’s conclusion is that near-Earth space exploration can be justified, such an impactful question must be constantly re-evaluated. I present one technical solution which seeks to make future space exploration cheaper and more efficient, but many solutions will be necessary to enable further space exploration and ensure exploring space does not irreparably damage the Earth.
I would like to thank Professor Caitlin Wylie, Professor Jason Forman and Peter Dow for their expertise and advice throughout the capstone process. I would also like to thank my capstone teammates Jose Elverdin, Flimon Kesete and Leon Li for an amazing job over the past two semesters. And thanks to the many people who gave advice and support over the past two semesters.
