Cities gained power, telephone and radio became common, the automotive industry took off, aviation began to skyrocket, and talking movies appeared. From 1930 to 1970, the world was stunned by the accomplishments made: color television, satellites, spacecraft, computers, antibiotics, nuclear power, Atlas, Titian, and Saturn rockets, Boeing 727's and nearly all modern warfare technology. We should have made miles of progress in the last forty years, but advancement has been appalling in comparison. We should have video phones, hover cars, fusion reactors, undersea cities, and colonies on the Moon and Mars (Zubrin 98: 32). Even more, the one advancement in the power industry, nuclear power, has been blocked by political forces trying to maintain the status quo, a blatant example of technological decadence if there ever was one. We need the frontier, not only as a country but as humanity as a whole.
Now that the problem has been laid out in its entirety the solution really is quite simple. It all revolves around money. The first change needed revolves around the idea that we must both gradually and quickly become a space faring civilization. It cannot be sudden without expending massive amounts of money to retool and redesign this country's space capabilities. However, we must be prepared to spend additional funds since it is often a pick two situation when one is looking for faster, better, and cheaper spacecraft. One also has to be careful of the Bearden rule, which is named from one of the first analysts to examine the mission success factors of NASA.
David Bearden explains that "when examined after the fact loss or impaired performance is often found to be the result of mismanagement or miscommunication" (qtd. in Mccurdy 11). Essentially, "difficulties are traceable to budget ceilings or schedule constraints that are too tight for the project" (Mccurdy 11). In situations such as these Bearden says that managers lack "sufficient resources to test, simulate, or review work and processes in a thorough manner" (qtd. in Mccurdy 11). Thus safety often becomes a real problem. In his book Engineering Disasters - Lessons to be Learned, writer Don Lawson states, "Large programs have to be divided into manageable units" (113). This unfortunately causes relationships, responsiveness, communication, and team spirit to become impaired as more and more resources are allocated and schedules fill up.
This leads to the feelings, "It's your problem, not mine," and "not to worry, the other guys will catch it down the road," (Lawson 113). Unfortunately, in an organization such as NASA, one person's problem is the entire organization's problem and one can't always count on a mistake to show up later, especially with all the technical work being done. Lawson also discusses the funding trap. In our success-oriented culture, enthusiasm can result in "unrealistic budgets and schedules" (Lawson 114). Therefore the burden is put on the engineers and program managers and then can result in increased acceptance of risks. "Doing things right the first time takes time and money. Solving problems later costs even more" (Lawson 114). If funding were to be increased, things could be done safer, faster, and better. The United States would be on the right track to getting that frontier back, and if we are the ones to keep humanity from destroying itself, then it maintains our ability to continue to be the sole superpower and set an example for the rest of the world.
The second part to this solution revolves around one simple fact. To make any mode of transportation common and accessible, it must be commercialized first. However, to commercialize it quickly, government subsidiaries are often needed. One can follow this track with the rail, automotive, and aviation industries. As the railroad expanded, it "spurred the development of industrial capitalism" (Berinstein 21). Local, state, and the national government became involved. They "provided incentives, granted monopolies, and otherwise supported private railroad development...from 1830 to 1840 U.S. railroads grew from nothing to ascendancy" (Berinstein 21). The same can be said of automobiles.
Henry Ford started out making cars and they were only for the rich. Not until the Model-T and World War I did the industry skyrocket, and that was because the United States wanted to use automobiles for the war. In aviation the U.S., French, German, and British governments were highly responsible for the birth of the commercial aviation industry. Once again World War I caused a fledgling industry to take off. Aviation was too great of an advantage to be left undeveloped. After the war France, Germany, and Britain "provided financing and subsidies [to] a thriving commercial aviation industry focused largely on passengers [connecting] Western Europe and northern Africa," (Berinstein 23).
The U.S. did something similar with the postal service to get mail out quicker and eventually legislation led to the privatization of these air routes. As one can, see history tends to repeat itself in this manner, so it would make sense to let the venture capitalists forge ahead on a different path than that of NASA. They are already setting up commercial spaceports in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Singapore, Sweden, The United Arab Emirates, and possibly Britain (Allan and Hastings Newsweek). Let them blaze the way to cheaper technology and yet still help them on their journey. They don't have the funding to do it alone, so subsidize them, fund them, make it worth their while and sooner or later it will turn out to be worth ours as well. "It's about the little guys, the risk-takers, the innovators," they're the ones who will achieve our dreams (Berinstein 26).
The solutions appear to be quite simple and some people may wonder if it is too simple to work. Well we have to admit it; this plan does have its faults. It requires a fair amount from the government, specifically in the form of money. There are many out there trying to slash NASA's budget (Colin vol. 16). This has to be prevented. If one cut is made it alerts others that NASA is "easy prey for those searching the federal budget waters for spending cuts," (Colin vol. 16). More consideration has to be given to the future of mankind, and that means more funding. However, there are also other plans to create a new frontier. One may ask why not use Antarctica or the ocean? The answer is both are only so big and the heart of the matter is that they won't last forever. We are still confined to this planet, which will not always be here.
Is the international space station good enough? No, because it is only supposed to last until 2017 and then its being abandoned. People want to go to the moon, and it is a good first step but there is nothing there capable of sustaining life for an extended period of time. It is too much like Antarctica. The best idea is if we were able to colonize other planets and other solar systems. Mars, therefore, is the logical first step. It has all the resources a new frontier has and it is close enough to be feasible at the moment. Until the technology is capable of sending humans to another solar system, we will have to make due with what lies within reach.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the cards have been dealt and the facts are clear. History repeats itself in more ways than one, so let's finally learn something from it. As Patrick Stewart's character Jean Luc Picard so succinctly put it, "Space: the final frontier." It is all we have left in the universe and it has so much to teach. The resources are infinite and the possibilities it grants are desperately needed. Fulfill humanity's destiny, save mankind from itself, and teach the world a little something about the U.S. of A. We can do it, we want to do it, we are going to do it.
