As a builder and investor in SpaceTech, I’ve seen plenty of arguments for investing in Space, and against investing in Space. One day, it might be humanity’s interplanetary future; yet another, it might be reduced to nothing more than a “Billionaire’s Playground.”
Yet at the end of the day, my thesis on the sector can be stated in its most general form as “Investments in Space benefit Humankind, both on and off Earth.” Below is a critical analysis of this thesis — and how it was derived from a letter that Ernst Stuhlinger, a NASA Scientist, wrote to Sister Mary Jucunta about why we should be exploring space, given that there are a plethora of problems left unsolved on Earth.
And behold / The blue planet steeped in its dream / Of reality, its calculated vision shaking with the only love
-- James Dickey, United States Poet Laureate
Christmas Eve in 1968 was a moment when humanity’s relationship with our world changed through a single photograph: Earthrise by Astronaut William Anders evokes the spirit and beauty of our home planet from a unique vantage point — the Apollo 8 spacecraft in a lunar orbit. An image captured far away from home, it sought to evoke emotions of unity through the narrative of how humans all live together on the same planet. Yet, following the crowning achievement of the Apollo Lunar Missions — landing humans on the moon and performing revolutionary scientific experiments that provided more clues to describe the formation of our solar system — skeptics remained. Even though humans demonstrated that it can launch members of its own kind to our nearest celestial body and return them safely, many were unconvinced that endeavors to support future such explorations of the last frontier were worth the capital expenditure. Indeed, the world is ravaged by poverty, famine, natural disasters and the like, so why must humans spend lavishly on scientific research when that money could be diverted to humanitarian purposes?
This was the viewpoint argued by Sister Mary Jucunda, a nun working in Zambia at the onset of the Apollo Lunar Landings. Exasperated by seeing NASA spend billions upon billions of dollars developing the technology that would one day bring humans to the moon, Jucunda composed a letter to Ernst Stuhlinger, Associate Director of Science at NASA, who subsequently replied with a letter of his own, titled “Why Explore Space?” In his letter, Stuhlinger channels the millennium-old dreams of humanity accomplished through space exploration and argues why those who believe that scientific research is fruitless and that such funding must be redirected towards humanitarian purposes are wrong. Such a short-sighted view, according to Stuhlinger, fails to recognize that investments in space exploration will pave the way for solutions to some of our greatest challenges on Earth to be realized. Stuhlinger assures Sister Mary Jucunda that what she perceives as competition between space exploration and humanitarian needs are actually not mutually exclusive at all but rather complementary efforts that work together toward a shared goal: a united Earth. Investments in scientific research are commitments to invest in the Earth’s long-term prosperity, and space exploration is just one such field in which advancements can benefit all of humanity in the long run. To accomplish these goals, Stuhlinger’s argument is composed of a structured set of layers, with two elements, namely tone and narrative, that serve as a solid foundation for the argument, and two additional elements, such as statistical quantities and Earthrise, which act in a more supporting role; all four elements work in conjunction to show the invaluable contributions of space exploration to society. A compassionate tone serves as the lowest-level yet most important rhetorical device employed by Stuhlinger — it helps him resonate with and understand his audience better. Strong analogies emphasized through narratives are vital to emphasizing how Space Exploration too will have a positive impact on human quality of life. Furthermore, the clever usage of statistics and Earthrise throughout the letter are critical to evoking strong emotions in the reader, therefore acting as another avenue of persuasion.
Constructing his thesis on a foundation of narratives is critical for Stuhlinger to define the border between delayed gratification and instant satisfaction as well as establish the foundations for his argument. To enable the reader to understand why space exploration is necessary for the greater good of humanity, Stuhlinger utilizes the story of the microscope’s invention to support his argument. This choice of narrative is especially interesting because it describes how investments into a certain technology ultimately led to an invention that changed the course of history. Vivid imagery describing how a count chose to give his money to the “strange man” who worked with lenses in tubes rather than to the poor, and subsequent backlash he received, sets an analogy up likening Stuhlinger’s relationships with the space exploration industry and naysayers like Sister Mary Jucunda. Hundreds of years later, it has been established that a large portion of advancements and knowledge in the biology and medical fields that we have gained would not have been possible without the invention of the microscope. Stuhlinger even noted that the count, by retaining money to invest in scientific advancements, “contributed far more to the relief of human suffering than he could have contributed by giving all he could to possibly spare to his plague-ridden community.” Here, Stuhlinger draws a comparison between himself and the count, affirming that investments in space exploration, while a seemingly unnecessary investment, could bring similar improvements to human quality-of-life in a manner similar to the microscope; however, the effects of which will take a significant amount of time to realize.
In addition, the tone of Stuhlinger’s essay plays a major role in establishing a solid and powerful argument because persuasion, rather than rebuttal, will invoke a more empathetic response from the letter’s audience, which consists primarily of those who do not believe space exploration is necessary for society, and that money allocated to such endeavors should be spent on humanitarian purposes. Stuhlinger’s choice of argument doesn’t identify points within Jucunda’s letter and attempts to prove that they are all wrong. His style suggests very nearly the opposite — in many ways, he establishes agreements with Jucunda. For example, while discussing NASA’s budget, Stuhlinger asserts that he strongly believes humanitarian problems need to be addressed; he “would not mind at all if [his] annual taxes were increased by a number of dollars for the purpose of feeding hungry children, wherever they may live.” Stuhlinger continues his discussion by providing one example in which space exploration will solve the problem of famine and malnourishment in impoverished countries: the artificial satellite. Here, descriptive language is used to demonstrate how these vehicles can scan the entire surface of the Earth and record copious amounts of climate and productivity data over a range of verticals. Stuhlinger argues that this “would increase the yearly crops by an equivalent of many billions of dollars.” To further strengthen his argument, Stuhlinger does not attempt to assert that artificial satellites are a one-stop solution to solving global hunger; rather, further strives to create a connection between himself and skeptics by showing how international cooperation must be applied in conjunction along with scientific advancements to collectively solve humanitarian issues. To do so, “the boundaries between nations [must become] less divisive than they are today,” and while space exploration will not accomplish this goal immediately, it can more effectively serve as a catalyst for erasing the potentially detrimental effects of borders between regions. Stuhlinger’s writing style is meticulous and concise in that he leaves very few holes and logical fallacies in his arguments, and this is certainly no exception: to demonstrate how space exploration can foster greater international cooperation and diminish nationalistic tendencies, Stuhlinger recounts the near-disaster of Apollo 13, when a fuel cell rupture rendered the spacecraft nearly uninhabitable. In such a contingency scenario, Stuhlinger describes how the Soviets, then the greatest threat to America, ceased all communications along frequencies similar to those used by Apollo 13 to prevent interference and readied its ships to attempt a crew recovery whenever needed. In a time when tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union were at an all-time high, Stuhlinger juxtaposes the unlikely cooperation between the two nations that formed entirely through humanity’s desire to travel to the stars. While such a narrative also forms the foundation of the letter, the compassionate tone utilized by Stuhlinger throughout the discussion of this narrative represents a convincing argument as to why space exploration can result in the cooperation between nations — therefore reducing the influence of the physical borders that divide humans through a shared desire to reach for the stars. Instead of science versus hunger, the microscope’s inventor versus hungry villagers, and even the Soviet Union versus the United States, Stuhlinger frames the scientific efforts as opportunities to collaborate for the betterment of humanity. Instead of each of these constituents being at odds with each other, Stuhlinger shows Jucunda that the end goal is the same, which is to build a more united Earth.
Without supporting evidence, it becomes difficult to convince a skeptic as to why investments should be made in space exploration; Stuhlinger tackles this problem well by showing how while space exploration is one of the most-debated topics in the federal government’s budget, the funds allocated toward space exploration represent a relatively small amount of the entire national budget. Through describing the space program as taking up just 1.6% of the federal budget, Stuhlinger is able to convince the audience that the majority of tax dollars Americans pay are, indeed, going towards purposes with humanitarian influence such as “health, education, welfare, urban renewal, … conservation, agriculture.” This is an effective use of quantified metrics to disprove the misconception that a significant portion of America’s federal budget is going into the space program. Despite the relatively small amount of capital allocated towards space exploration, Stuhlinger uses the remainder of his letter to argue the future benefits that such scientific advancements will bring to humans. As such, in this letter quantified metrics are tied together to disprove a common misconception and facilitate the discussion that space exploration is ultimately a win-win situation for all: it requires significantly less capital than other efforts, yet will have far-reaching positive impacts on human life.
Stuhlinger’s final element woven into the letter is a sense of wonder conveyed through Anders’ photograph Earthrise, which is used in this context to explain why humans chose to explore space, despite the countless other programs that could be solved using the same resources. In the final paragraph, Stuhlinger utilizes language such as “never before did so many people recognize how limited our Earth really is, and how perilous it would be to tamper with its ecological balance.” This is another layer of the compassionate tone that is so prevalent through the essay; it provides a basis on which a sense of urgency can be applied by the writer. Stuhlinger indicates that Earthrise has truly shown us that there is only one planet that we inhabit, and society’s biggest issues, namely pollution, poverty, famines, overpopulation, etc. Rather than use Earthrise as a device to further discourage his audience that little could be done about the situation, he uses the photograph to accomplish the opposite: Stuhlinger optimistically believes that space exploration is what provides humans with tools that allow us to approach these tasks “with confidence.” Concluding this thought with a quote by Albert Schweitzer, Stuhlinger demonstrates to the audience that the lessons learned in our exploration of space is a direct reflection of Schweitzer’s belief that while the future is to be approached with concern, it is also to be approached with a feeling of hope.
Upon receipt of Stuhlinger’s letter, Sister Mary Jucunda penned a simple response: “Thank you — from now on, I firmly believe in the profound value of the space program.” Stuhlinger concludes his essay by calling his audience to action through affirmation that our Earth will “become a better Earth, … because of all the new technological and scientific knowledge which we will apply to the betterment of life.” The final sentence of this paragraph, delivered in a tone that closely matches the rest of the speech, instills in the reader a deeper appreciation of our home planet, life, and humankind. One may attest that increased spending in space exploration and other technological industries is of no use to solving the problems that we currently face because they only seek to increase inequality and conflict. However, as Stuhlinger notes, these continued investments are indeed devices that close borders, rather than prolong their existence: not only does technology better human lives, but it unites us in the process of doing so.