Rate my AWA "Space Race"
[#permalink]
13 Feb 2017, 06:05
Prompt: “The “Space Race” of the 1960’s between the USA and Russia was very expensive but it yielded a tremendous number of technological advances. These advances have provided many economic and humanitarian benefits. The benefits have more than paid for the effort and money spent during the Space Race and therefore the government should make allowances within the budget to pay for a manned Mars landing by 2020.”
The author argues that the United States should fund a manned mission to Mars and he or she supports the argument by suggesting that the positive results the United States achieved during the "Space Race" of the 1960s will be similar to those a manned mission to Mars would achieve. This argument fails to make a logical comparison between the two programs, naively assumes that past success is an indicator of future success, and fails to provide any data to quantify the "economic and humanitarian benefits" that the argument so strongly rests upon.
First, it is important to consider that the environment during the 1960s was dramatically different than the environment today. The Cold War was the primary motivation behind the United States' participation in the "Space Race." With fears of a nuclear Soviet Union striking fears into the minds of every day Americans, the United States Congress had tremendous support from the public to fund the "Space Race," which was essentially an arms race. That environment does not exist today. It is important to realize that for any program to have tremendous success it must have tremendous public support. The "Space Race" of the 1960s did have that support, and the author fails to provide any remote evidence that a manned mission to Mars would garner any similar support. In fact, a manned mission to Mars could have the opposite effect -- little to no support at all -- given the difficult fiscal environment the United States Government is in and the loss of STS Challenger in 1986 and STS Colombia in 2003.
Second, the technological gains mentioned in the argument could have been a result of "low hanging fruit." For example, during the 1960s, the computer revolution was just beginning. Economic theory teaches about diminishing marginal returns. Almost every endeavor is subject to diminishing marginal returns, and the vast amount of technological gain the United States experienced during the 1960s could have been a result of early, quick gains. It could not be expected that the growth rate of new discoveries would continue solely because a new program is started. The gains were likely part of the computer revolution and the author fails to realize that point.
Finally, the author strongly relies on "economic and humanitarian benefits" to justify the manned Mars mission, yet he fails to provide any data that could reasonably quantify the costs of the "Space Race" against the gains. It would be challenging for anyone to put a dollar figure on "humanitarian benefits." The author may very well have a strong argument here and he or she could have strengthened it by quantifying the benefits in ways such as: lives saved through new medical technologies discovered; higher quality of life discoveries; or more efficient manufacturing processes. Any quantifiable data in terms of dollars could have made this argument more legitimate.
In conclusion, it is clear that the argument, as presented, is weak, but it has potential to strike a chord with Congress if the potential benefits of a manned mission to Mars can be quantified against the costs (and risks). The author should not rely on the past success of the "Space Race" as that is clearly a faulty comparison given the environment in the 1960s compared to the environment today.