In 1970, a Zambia-based nun named Sister Mary Jucunda wrote to Dr. Ernst Stuhlinger, then-associate director of science at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, in response to his ongoing research into a piloted mission toMars. Specifically, she asked how he could suggest spending billions of dollars on such a project at a time when so many children were starving on Earth.
Stuhlinger soon sent the following letter of explanation to Sister Jucunda, along with a copy of “Earthrise,” the iconic photograph of Earth taken in 1968 by astronaut William Anders, from the Moon (also embedded in the transcript). His thoughtful reply was later published by NASA, and titled, “Why Explore Space?”
May 6, 1970
Dear Sister Mary Jucunda:
Your letter was one of many which are reaching me every day, but it has touched me more deeply than all the others because it came so much from the depths of a searching mind and a compassionate heart. I will try to answer your question as best as I possibly can.
First, however, I would like to express my great admiration for you, and for all your many brave sisters, because you are dedicating your lives to the noblest cause of man: help for his fellowmen who are in need.
You asked in your letter how I could suggest the expenditures of billions of dollars for a voyage to Mars, at a time when many children on this Earth are starving to death. I know that you do not expect an answer such as “Oh, I did not know that there are children dying from hunger, but from now on I will desist from any kind of space research until mankind has solved that problem!” In fact, I have known of famined children long before I knew that a voyage to the planet Mars is technically feasible. However, I believe, like many of my friends, that travelling to the Moon and eventually to Mars and to other planets is a venture which we should undertake now, and I even believe that this project, in the long run, will contribute more to the solution of these grave problems we are facing here on Earth than many other potential projects of help which are debated and discussed year after year, and which are so extremely slow in yielding tangible results.
Before trying to describe in more detail how our space program is contributing to the solution of our Earthly problems, I would like to relate briefly a supposedly true story, which may help support the argument. About 400 years ago, there lived a count in a small town in Germany. He was one of the benign counts, and he gave a large part of his income to the poor in his town. This was much appreciated, because poverty was abundant during medieval times, and there were epidemics of the plague which ravaged the country frequently. One day, the count met a strange man. He had a workbench and little laboratory in his house, and he labored hard during the daytime so that he could afford a few hours every evening to work in his laboratory. He ground small lenses from pieces of glass; he mounted the lenses in tubes, and he used these gadgets to look at very small objects. The count was particularly fascinated by the tiny creatures that could be observed with the strong magnification, and which he had never seen before. He invited the man to move with his laboratory to the castle, to become a member of the count’s household, and to devote henceforth all his time to the development and perfection of his optical gadgets as a special employee of the count.
The townspeople, however, became angry when they realized that the count was wasting his money, as they thought, on a stunt without purpose. “We are suffering from this plague,” they said, “while he is paying that man for a useless hobby!” But the count remained firm. “I give you as much as I can afford,” he said, “but I will also support this man and his work, because I know that someday something will come out of it!”
Indeed, something very good came out of this work, and also out of similar work done by others at other places: the microscope. It is well known that the microscope has contributed more than any other invention to the progress of medicine, and that the elimination of the plague and many other contagious diseases from most parts of the world is largely a result of studies which the microscope made possible.
The count, by retaining some of his spending money for research and discovery, contributed far more to the relief of human suffering than he could have contributed by giving all he could possibly spare to his plague-ridden community.
The situation which we are facing today is similar in many respects. The President of the United States is spending about 200 billion dollars in his yearly budget. This money goes to health, education, welfare, urban renewal, highways, transportation, foreign aid, defense, conservation, science, agriculture and many installations inside and outside the country. About 1.6 percent of this national budget was allocated to space exploration this year. The space program includes Project Apollo, and many other smaller projects in space physics, space astronomy, space biology, planetary projects, Earth resources projects, and space engineering. To make this expenditure for the space program possible, the average American taxpayer with 10,000 dollars income per year is paying about 30 tax dollars for space. The rest of his income, 9,970 dollars, remains for his subsistence, his recreation, his savings, his other taxes, and all his other expenditures.
You will probably ask now: “Why don’t you take 5 or 3 or 1 dollar out of the 30 space dollars which the average American taxpayer is paying, and send these dollars to the hungry children?” To answer this question, I have to explain briefly how the economy of this country works. The situation is very similar in other countries. The government consists of a number of departments (Interior, Justice, Health, Education and Welfare, Transportation, Defense, and others) and the bureaus (National Science Foundation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and others). All of them prepare their yearly budgets according to their assigned missions, and each of them must defend its budget against extremely severe screening by congressional committees, and against heavy pressure for economy from the Bureau of the Budget and the President. When the funds are finally appropriated by Congress, they can be spent only for the line items specified and approved in the budget.
The budget of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, naturally, can contain only items directly related to aeronautics and space. If this budget were not approved by Congress, the funds proposed for it would not be available for something else; they would simply not be levied from the taxpayer, unless one of the other budgets had obtained approval for a specific increase which would then absorb the funds not spent for space. You realize from this brief discourse that support for hungry children, or rather a support in addition to what the United States is already contributing to this very worthy cause in the form of foreign aid, can be obtained only if the appropriate department submits a budget line item for this purpose, and if this line item is then approved by Congress.
You may ask now whether I personally would be in favor of such a move by our government. My answer is an emphatic yes. Indeed, I would not mind at all if my annual taxes were increased by a number of dollars for the purpose of feeding hungry children, wherever they may live.
I know that all of my friends feel the same way. However, we could not bring such a program to life merely by desisting from making plans for voyages to Mars. On the contrary, I even believe that by working for the space program I can make some contribution to the relief and eventual solution of such grave problems as poverty and hunger on Earth. Basic to the hunger problem are two functions: the production of food and the distribution of food. Food production by agriculture, cattle ranching, ocean fishing and other large-scale operations is efficient in some parts of the world, but drastically deficient in many others. For example, large areas of land could be utilized far better if efficient methods of watershed control, fertilizer use, weather forecasting, fertility assessment, plantation programming, field selection, planting habits, timing of cultivation, crop survey and harvest planning were applied.
The best tool for the improvement of all these functions, undoubtedly, is the artificial Earth satellite. Circling the globe at a high altitude, it can screen wide areas of land within a short time; it can observe and measure a large variety of factors indicating the status and condition of crops, soil, droughts, rainfall, snow cover, etc., and it can radio this information to ground stations for appropriate use. It has been estimated that even a modest system of Earth satellites equipped with Earth resources, sensors, working within a program for worldwide agricultural improvements, will increase the yearly crops by an equivalent of many billions of dollars.
The distribution of the food to the needy is a completely different problem. The question is not so much one of shipping volume, it is one of international cooperation. The ruler of a small nation may feel very uneasy about the prospect of having large quantities of food shipped into his country by a large nation, simply because he fears that along with the food there may also be an import of influence and foreign power. Efficient relief from hunger, I am afraid, will not come before the boundaries between nations have become less divisive than they are today. I do not believe that space flight will accomplish this miracle over night. However, the space program is certainly among the most promising and powerful agents working in this direction.
Let me only remind you of the recent near-tragedy of Apollo 13. When the time of the crucial reentry of the astronauts approached, the Soviet Union discontinued all Russian radio transmissions in the frequency bands used by the Apollo Project in order to avoid any possible interference, and Russian ships stationed themselves in the Pacific and the Atlantic Oceans in case an emergency rescue would become necessary. Had the astronaut capsule touched down near a Russian ship, the Russians would undoubtedly have expended as much care and effort in their rescue as if Russian cosmonauts had returned from a space trip. If Russian space travelers should ever be in a similar emergency situation, Americans would do the same without any doubt.
Higher food production through survey and assessment from orbit, and better food distribution through improved international relations, are only two examples of how profoundly the space program will impact life on Earth. I would like to quote two other examples: stimulation of technological development, and generation of scientific knowledge.
The requirements for high precision and for extreme reliability which must be imposed upon the components of a moon-travelling spacecraft are entirely unprecedented in the history of engineering. The development of systems which meet these severe requirements has provided us a unique opportunity to find new material and methods, to invent better technical systems, to manufacturing procedures, to lengthen the lifetimes of instruments, and even to discover new laws of nature.
All this newly acquired technical knowledge is also available for application to Earth-bound technologies. Every year, about a thousand technical innovations generated in the space program find their ways into our Earthly technology where they lead to better kitchen appliances and farm equipment, better sewing machines and radios, better ships and airplanes, better weather forecasting and storm warning, better communications, better medical instruments, better utensils and tools for everyday life. Presumably, you will ask now why we must develop first a life support system for our moon-travelling astronauts, before we can build a remote-reading sensor system for heart patients. The answer is simple: significant progress in the solutions of technical problems is frequently made not by a direct approach, but by first setting a goal of high challenge which offers a strong motivation for innovative work, which fires the imagination and spurs men to expend their best efforts, and which acts as a catalyst by including chains of other reactions.
Spaceflight without any doubt is playing exactly this role. The voyage to Mars will certainly not be a direct source of food for the hungry. However, it will lead to so many new technologies and capabilities that the spin-offs from this project alone will be worth many times the cost of its implementation.
Besides the need for new technologies, there is a continuing great need for new basic knowledge in the sciences if we wish to improve the conditions of human life on Earth. We need more knowledge in physics and chemistry, in biology and physiology, and very particularly in medicine to cope with all these problems which threaten man’s life: hunger, disease, contamination of food and water, pollution of the environment.
We need more young men and women who choose science as a career and we need better support for those scientists who have the talent and the determination to engage in fruitful research work. Challenging research objectives must be available, and sufficient support for research projects must be provided. Again, the space program with its wonderful opportunities to engage in truly magnificent research studies of moons and planets, of physics and astronomy, of biology and medicine is an almost ideal catalyst which induces the reaction between the motivation for scientific work, opportunities to observe exciting phenomena of nature, and material support needed to carry out the research effort.
Among all the activities which are directed, controlled, and funded by the American government, the space program is certainly the most visible and probably the most debated activity, although it consumes only 1.6 percent of the total national budget, and 3 per mille (less than one-third of 1 percent) of the gross national product. As a stimulant and catalyst for the development of new technologies, and for research in the basic sciences, it is unparalleled by any other activity. In this respect, we may even say that the space program is taking over a function which for three or four thousand years has been the sad prerogative of wars.
How much human suffering can be avoided if nations, instead of competing with their bomb-dropping fleets of airplanes and rockets, compete with their moon-travelling space ships! This competition is full of promise for brilliant victories, but it leaves no room for the bitter fate of the vanquished, which breeds nothing but revenge and new wars.
Although our space program seems to lead us away from our Earth and out toward the moon, the sun, the planets, and the stars, I believe that none of these celestial objects will find as much attention and study by space scientists as our Earth. It will become a better Earth, not only because of all the new technological and scientific knowledge which we will apply to the betterment of life, but also because we are developing a far deeper appreciation of our Earth, of life, and of man.
The photograph which I enclose with this letter shows a view of our Earth as seen from Apollo 8 when it orbited the moon at Christmas, 1968. Of all the many wonderful results of the space program so far, this picture may be the most important one. It opened our eyes to the fact that our Earth is a beautiful and most precious island in an unlimited void, and that there is no other place for us to live but the thin surface layer of our planet, bordered by the bleak nothingness of space. 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. Ever since this picture was first published, voices have become louder and louder warning of the grave problems that confront man in our times: pollution, hunger, poverty, urban living, food production, water control, overpopulation. It is certainly not by accident that we begin to see the tremendous tasks waiting for us at a time when the young space age has provided us the first good look at our own planet.
Very fortunately though, the space age not only holds out a mirror in which we can see ourselves, it also provides us with the technologies, the challenge, the motivation, and even with the optimism to attack these tasks with confidence. What we learn in our space program, I believe, is fully supporting what Albert Schweitzer had in mind when he said: “I am looking at the future with concern, but with good hope.”
My very best wishes will always be with you, and with your children.
Very sincerely yours,
Associate Director for Science
When the count decided to exercise his discretion and fund the young man’s research( or whims and fancies, as the masses would have called it) the communists would have cried that the poor and the diseased cannot afford the wait and the count should not make such whimsical expenditures, but rather should care more for the poor, but we all know how the story turned out.
No one had a master plan, which predicted the invention of the microscope and the eventual invention of vaccines. What was done was recognizing the count’s individual liberty and his discretion to exercise his choices. That is what the invisible hand of the free market does.
Its been a year since I finished my MS program. Couple of things did not work out for me while in grad school. Here are a few thoughts on grad school in general.
Reasons for ditching phd –
- Not a good fit with the lab and the topic I was involved in – The lab’s main focus was planning and scheduling. There was also work on the side about databases/information retrieval/social media analysis etc… I was involved in topic modeling/social media analysis, and very soon lost interest in it. I was interested in graphical models(non-parametrics) and online learning in ML( the sort of stuff Zoubin Ghahramani and Shai Shalev-Shwartz ). I thought I could make a bargain and settle for planning/scheduling etc… but I could not see how I could meaningfully change tracks to planning, so I bailed out.
Nonetheless, there are a lot of interesting things I take away from my MS experience. Here are a few non-technical ones –
- Do a Masters thesis only if you are seriously considering doing a PhD. A MS thesis will give you a ringside view of what a PhD will be like. An MS thesis for any other reason does not make sense.( I already knew this getting into the program, but the number of people who did not know it was staggering, hence mentioning it here)
- Get your finances sorted out within the first semester of your MS program( Half a semester or One Semester fee is what people can usually pay without taking any sort of loan). Try to get fully funded. Now it is unfair to expect your professor to fund your research while you are still an MS student because it does not work out well for them. But there are usually a lot of web development and other software development work that gets offered on campus which will give you full assistantship. Try to get those. You cannot do good research if you have an education loan hanging on your head.
- I saw many people opting for PhD because it will give them more time to look for more lucrative jobs in Silicon Valley. Such people are going into a PhD program, confident that they will not finish the program and will quit in the middle. This is probably the lamest thing you can do.
- Also there are many people who went into a PhD program not knowing what exactly it entails. Their goal with a PhD program is to end up with a job in a top company like Google/Facebook etc… Now, Google is a brilliant company, and many brilliant PhD students find fulfilling work in Google, post their PhD studies. But getting into a PhD program with the aim of getting a particular job in a particular company is a very painful way of doing things.
- The motivation for a PhD should be learning as much as possible about a subject, getting excited about publishing your ideas, and building a network and making a name for yourself. PhD is not about taking an extra load of courses, and finding a high paying job.
- Try to align your research topic with the main focus of your research lab and your advisor. This will make your experience more fulfilling. Going off on a tangent can get you lost.
- If you follow up on your interests even after grad school, you can end up with an applied research position in some of the industry labs 4~5 years down the road even without a PhD. ( if that is your aim )
- Having a good rapport with your advisor or other senior PhD student/post-doc you are working with is most important. Without this everything else futile.
Few other points about choosing schools and professors –
- Choose school over professors. Better schools invariably have a good supply of sufficiently good profs, might not be a top prof but still it will give a lot of options if you want to switch specialization/prof etc..
- Also the top profs in mediocre schools are usually grumpy and unhappy that they do not have access to a better talent pool . Which makes them hard to work with, which in turn makes it all the more difficult for you. This happened a lot in the lab I was working in.
- I usually tend to work better when the environment is competitive( in a healthy way), and the subject is challenging and deep. If the task is easy/boring I tend to slack off and perform worse. I did not feel excited at the prospect of working in the lab I was involved in.
Other references related to grad education –
These stories are true in a weird way –
I started reading and following Indian Politics extensively in my third year of engineering. I read from a lot of sources and followed the writings of a lot of people. One of the most influential people was Rajesh Jain, a Pune based businessman, and his blog Emergic was very good. Over the past year I have reduced significantly the amount of news and op-eds that I read, and hence this blog has also been more or less dead. But recently I came across this four part series from Rajesh Jain and Jaykrishnan Nair( Varnam), about the future of Economic prosperity in India and about Rewriting Indian history by the above two people respectively. As they are two people whose opinions I value a lot, I thought I should archive those articles somewhere for future reference-
What is the difference between an M.Tech from an IIT and an M.S. from a top 50 US university for computer science?
This post was very good and relevant to many things I have to say about the Indian education system, so I thought I would cross post it onto my blog –
Answer by Shubham Mukherjee:
Recently came across an update from Inside IIT Facebook page () :
This short story is the perfect fit here and for so many other questions here on Quora. I am sure many of us can relate ..
Consider two students. One, Raj, is a financially well-off kid of above average smartness, and the other, Hari is your typical genius. Hari toils it out to get into the IIT, and by virtue of his intelligence does some outstanding preparation. Raj frankly doesn’t have the same academic caliber. He does well in his board examinations, but knows he’s not on the same level as Hari. He does the best thing he can – he decides to apply abroad, to the US. Hari, frankly, thinks Raj is taking the easy way out, and because he can’t afford to go abroad, continues focusing on the IIT. Come exam season, it turns out that Hari comes 7th in the IIT. He is ecstatic. Like every other single digit ranker, he decides to do Computer Science at IIT Delhi. Meanwhile, Raj is also ecstatic that he made it to Carnegie Mellon in the US, to do Computer Science. He knows he didn’t really have to work really hard, but he is very pleased.
Fast forward 4 years in the future.
Hari has a great 9.6/10 CGPA at IIT, and is at the top of his class. Raj, on the other hand, has a not-too-shabby 3.52/4.0 at CMU. Both of them are getting all ready to make career choices. In terms of options, Raj has an array of great choices ranging from Facebook, Google, and a whole list of Silicon Valley tech companies, known both for their great compensation and work life balance. He is relaxed about his future and starts thanking the decision he made 4 years ago. Meanwhile Hari, despite being at the top of his class, hates the fact that he has to go through a huge random process to get an offer even comparable to Raj. Very few people from the IIT will end up with that great offer from abroad and most land decent-ish jobs in India. He starts realizing his CGPA hardly matters if he doesn’t do well on his “written tests”. He does not look forward to it. Eventually though, he works extra extra hard and ends up working at the same place as Raj.
What happened? There are two theories:
1. The Indian Mindset: If you’re from India, this story is probably not new to you. You think Raj ‘paid his way to success’ while Hari really ‘struggled it out’. You are of the belief that Hari is infinitely smarter and better than Raj, and that Raj ‘got lucky’ because American companies are bound to recruit him because he’s from an American college. Raj is an undeserving rich kid and Hari is a genius. If you had to brag about one of them, you’d easily choose Hari anyday.
Moral of the Story
As I said, we’ve all heard of this story in some form. Now, getting to the point of the question, what are academic shortcomings of the IIT?
Everything I just said, really. If you could put intelligence on a scale of 0 to 100, IIT made Hari go from a 70 to a 80, but CMU made Raj go from a 45 to an 85. CMU would’ve probably made Hari go to a 90 and more, had he gone. The point is, with respect to Computer Science at least, the focus is wrong. The IITs don’t really teach their students much. There is a high correlation between being in IIT and being smart but this isn’t the causation. They took already smart people and claimed them as under the “IIT” brand. I feel like this misconception drives most of the IIT hype. You don’t have world class research at the IITs, you don’t have broad course offerings, you don’t have an internet based education system, you don’t have practical based courses, you don’t have exposure to the industry, you don’t have exposure to the most influential people in your field, so frankly, you don’t have much.
Support us and let’s change this system
Reference Source :
As pointed out to me in one of the comments :
Original Source of the story was
I recently came across this blog post about how opposing dynastic politics is not a very sound argument against any political leader.
I completely agree with the article and for the record, here are my comments for that post:
Dynastic politics is not an issue, ineptitude is. Dynastic politics often becomes a problem in scenarios where ‘bad products’ get promoted in the name of ‘good brand name’.
Think about Sachin Pilot or Milind Deora, no one complains so much. They might just mention it, but that can never be the main argument against them. Rahul Gandhi on the other hand has demonstrated tremendous ineptitude and reluctance to be involved in politics. It feels as though he is being retained to en-cash on the ‘brand name’ than for any personal worth he may have.
I agree being against dynastic politics is silly and not possible, but being against ineptitude is not. Making an equivalence with lawyers and doctors is very silly( it is about public and private costs and risks).
I will give you another example. Jayant Sinha son of ex-FM Yashwant Sinha, went to IIT-Delhi, got admitted into the Ivy league colleges on his merit( his father had not acquired public office by that time), had a successful career in business and consulting and now he is contesting elections on his father’s ticket. Yes, he got a ticket because because he is Yashwant Sinha’s son, but his prior achievements are not because of his father. I have no objection to such candidates, and I am sure the majority would not either.
Now compare this with Rahul Gandhi’s case, the difference and the absurdity of clubbing all such people under the umbrella of dynastic politics will become apparent.
Conclusion – Dynasty is never the problem, ineptitude is. Dynasty is probably the reason for the ineptitude. The people, in general, get pissed off when inept people occupy high office only because of who they were born to rather than what they are capable of.
Playing a sport. Even better if it happens from a younger age.