Fifty-five years ago, Sputnik became the first artificial satellite in Earth orbit. Four years later, Yuri Gagarin became the first human in space. In 1965, Alexey Leonov would become more under-appreciated than Yuri Gagarin as the first human to perform a space walk. While Sputnik is a fairly household name, Gagarin and Leonov are relegated to space nerds, Star Trek, and postage stamps in countries other than the US. Americans would rather celebrate two-thirds of the Apollo 11 crew, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, for being the first humans on the moon.
Pop culture would have Americans think that post-Apollo, the US dominated the space race. However, the Russians were the first to put up a space station, and led the way with space stations until the International Space Station replaced Mir. It is true that the US is the only country that successfully used a reusable launch vehicle (the Space Shuttle), but the Soviets had the Buran in response to the payload capacity of the Space Shuttle. Additionally, to this day, Roscosmos has plans to replace the Soyuz spacecraft.
Historically, with both sides claiming significant victories, it is difficult to say who won in space. In many ways, everyone won. Present day, it is clear who has won. Without a shadow of doubt, the Russians have won the space race. Roscosmos and the Chinese Space Agency are the only two national space agencies that currently can launch people into space. While the Chinese have the ability, unlike the US, the Russians are the only country currently actively engaged in human spaceflight. What would have Americans thought of this in 1969?
First, I do not think very many Americans in 1969 would have thought for a moment that the Chinese would exceed the ability of the US to launch people and satellites into space, ever. That would have been unfathomable. More interestingly, to suggest that Russia would surpass and maintain a space agency that would replace NASA as the world's premiere human spaceflight program would have been unpatriotic!
Now though, with an Apollo 40th anniversary sticker on my clipboard, I am a nerd, and the exception. Many Americans, including many who would have called one a traitor for implying the Russians would win the space race, now tout their patriotism when they demand that funding to NASA be slashed in favor of tax cuts for the wealthy. I, the space nerd, am actually accused of being unpatriotic in 21st Century America for thinking that the US should have the best space program in the world. Frankly, that is sad.
I think it is a tragedy that science has become a partisan issue, NASA is considered pork worth cutting, that education is expendable, that infrastructure is allowed to crumble, that veterans do not get benefits, that the US military spends more on contracts to giant corporations for defense systems that do not work, than they do on soldiers, and that the environment is something to exploit. I see two things that have made these changes. First, many people who claim to be patriots would rather line the pockets of the rich, than keep the US great. Second, these (generally) same people demand to be told both sides of every issue.
On the topic of taxes, what can I say? In my world view it is my patriotic and civic duty, as well as in my best interest, to pay taxes. I think that taxes should be based on what you earn (I earn more than lots of folk, and I should pay a higher tax rate than they do). I accept that governments will waste some money. I will pay my taxes, knowing some of it will be wasted, to know that people my age and younger will be able to retire, and get medical care. To know that veterans are healed and thanked. To know that the US is a leader of nations. In all honesty though, I do not think taxes are the real issue. The TEA Party talks a lot of taxes, but that is the wealthy preying on the ignorant. Average Americans do not think that kids should go without education, healthcare, or food. Thus, while they do not understand government, they want the services that taxes bring, and therefore, actually do want taxes. The problem, in fact, lies in the second issue.
It sounds so innocent on the surface. In fact, it sounds like good common sense, to be told both sides of an issue. In most cases, it is. Without free media, only the state's side of an issue is told to the people. Yet, if you have a free media, and there is consensus on an issue, could this demand be used to actually damage factual information? Exactly, and it is no accident that this is what is happening. One of NASA's major (remaining) missions is to monitor the changes in the Earth. Years ago, this mission was referred to something silly like "Spaceship Earth." I will stick with this name. The idea behind Spaceship Earth was that humanity is more or less limited to this one place. One place in all the vastness of space, with finite resources and growing populations. The idea was that the "spaceship" we call Earth must stay habitable for humans to survive.
Spaceship Earth (and many other researchers) found out lots of interesting things, and generated lots of great data. The thing about data is that data are. One can interpret data in various ways, but at the end of the day, the data still are. They are what they were at the beginning of the day, and they are what they will be at the end of the next day. Sometimes mistakes are made, and sometimes data are misinterpreted. In general, peer-reviewed science, is pretty good. When Spaceship Earth type studies found that climate was changing owing to anthropogenic carbon dioxide, only companies with a vested interest in generating carbon dioxide were concerned, much like the discovery of the ozone hole (unrelated to climate change). Since there was pretty solid consensus, few people thought of arguing.
We have consensus on many social issues, and some consensus is waning. There was a time in the US when consensus was that drugs like THC (found in marijuana) should be illegal, but those feelings are changing. There was also a time in the US when consensus was that slavery is good, now consensus is that slavery is bad. It takes brave dissidents to change the way we think about social issues we have consensus on. That is why it is important to hear "both sides." It seems to me that powerful and influential people and corporations noticed that consensus can be swayed by public opinion in social issues, and they ventured that most people did not understand the difference between a debate about whether prostitution should be legal, and scientific findings, like plate tectonics.
"What if," these people wondered to themselves, "people could be convinced that the plate tectonics proponents were keeping down a competing hypothesis"? They then went about instilling doubt, but it was not about plate tectonics. Few people doubt that today. Nor was it about things like the existence of electricity. See, these things make life better and more comfortable. But global climate change and evolution make life more difficult. If evolution exists, then people have to learn about biology. If global climate change is real then the environment cannot be systematically raped for profit. What better way to instill doubt than by offering alternatives that are more comfortable?
That is exactly what they did. People like the Koch brothers convinced Americans that 750,000 years of climate data did not actually tell us about climate on Earth. That the study of Spaceship Earth was a moot point, because Spaceship Earth was actually unchanging, no matter what the data said. When the data were so overwhelming that this argument was abandoned, the public had doubt, and were ready to take on the new tagline that "it doesn't matter"! So the Kochs convinced people that no matter what the scientific consensus was, there was "another side." That the billionaires were being mistreated by the academics. That you could choose your own interpretation in science.
I will admit, these people have come up with some interesting arguments. Though each argument they come up with is disproved. That is the real strength to the side of doubt. Understanding and knowledge takes time, data, and study. Doubt takes a plausible idea dreamed up in the basement of some think tank. After years of hearing nonsense about volcanoes releasing more carbon dioxide than humans, science has proven that, in fact, all of the volcanoes of the world combined do not release as much carbon dioxide as humans. I will repeat that for effect. All of the volcanoes of the world, blasting fantastic displays of power into the atmosphere, release less carbon dioxide than people turning on lights and driving cars.
This is a circuitous route back to NASA, but one may be wondering why it would pay to instill doubt in an entire country? The answer is back to taxes. If I make more than you, than I pay more taxes, which I already stated, I like. If you make more than me, you pay a higher tax rate than I do (maybe). This means that billionaires should be paying a lot more than everyone else. (Keep in mind, if a billionaire makes 1% interest on their money, they can do nothing and make $10,000,000 (that is 10 million dollars) per year. That is for doing nothing!) Conversely, if they lower their tax rate by a little bit, they save a lot of money. (If that billionaire lowers their tax rate by 1%, they save what two average American families make in a year combined.) To keep with the Koch Brothers, they each have about $25 billion. This means that you multiple those numbers by 25 for each of them (50 for both). Thus, if they lower their tax rate by 1%, in a year that they did nothing, and earned only 1% interest on their money they would each save what fifty average American families make in a year combined! How much do you save by lowering your tax rate by 1%? The average household would save about $500.
Back to NASA. NASA is now bailing, like so many US agencies, from international, national and local programs that help every citizen of the US. An example of this is the ExoMars program. NASA will likely bow out of this program, and in its stead, the Russians will likely be taking up the slack. Now, Roscosmos will lead the US not only in human spaceflight, but also in Mars exploration. The Chinese have lunar ambitions. Iran is even putting more living things into space than the US! I find it shocking and embarrassing that people who watched the moon landing would even, for a moment, consider underfunding NASA and science in the US. These are the people who are leading the US down a path away from science, and arguing for a new US.
Because when you think about the magnitude of the difference between the savings of the rich versus the savings of the average American with a 1% tax rate reduction, it is not about saving money for you and I. Arguing for tax cuts is arguing for a widening of the gap between rich and poor. It is arguing against healthy, educated kids. It is arguing against NASA. It is, in fact, arguing that the Soviets should win.
