Casey Dreier, director of advocacy for the Planetary Society, says, “What has really driven space policy historically–particularly with the Apollo missions–was national security interests.”Įven so, NASA anticipates a budget increase in the next few months, which some may consider a result of the wave of public enthusiasm. Even during the space race, critics questioned whether it was wise to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on space technology when domestic programs were increasingly underfunded. It’s a mistake to believe that public enthusiasm was ever responsible for the high level of NASA funding. #Nasa spent money on matt damon seriesOpinions on NASA funding, therefore, aren’t entirely reliant on Americans’ views on space travel itself, but rather are intimately connected to a series of domestic and international concerns that shape beliefs regarding the way money ought to be spent. Despite a constant level of approval, however, Americans increasingly believe that too much money is being spent on space travel compared to other government programs. The Washington Post reported that public approval for NASA has remained relatively constant over the past 30 years, and that it has been consistently been ranked as one of the most popular public agencies. While The Martian focuses more explicitly on NASA than either of the previous films and depicts a somewhat feasible mission, it’s unclear if this enthusiasm could, unlike other popular space films, translate directly to increased funding. These hopes were for naught, however: Public enthusiasm didn’t translate to an increase in funding. In the past two years, two space films, Interstellar and Gravity, also made huge waves at the box office, prompting similar arguments that these films could bolster NASA’s dwindling budget. That is to say, the film could further NASA’s own specific policy goals: Since The Martian’s release, NASA has shared graphics that compare the film’s mission to NASA’s own proposed mission to Mars. Its involvement with The Martian is far more extensive than similar collaborations in the past, particularly because the film so closely resembles a mission that NASA actually intends to undertake. It may seem odd that a federal agency would become so closely involved in a big budget film, but the agency rightly saw the project as an opportunity for lucrative publicity. The agency was directly involved in the film’s production, and helped Ridley produce a narrative that was, at the very least, grounded in science. NASA itself has been quick to jump on the film’s bandwagon. Critic Fred Scharmen argues that The Martian has challenged the stereotype of science as lacking diversity, and in the process is “inspiring audiences that never would have had access to these career paths in the 1950s and ’60s.” Supporters note the film is more inclusive than past space films, depicting a NASA team not solely comprised of white men. But can a space film really save NASA?Ĭurrent scientists have pointed to science fiction as a root of their interest in the STEM fields, suggesting that movies like The Martian could inspire a future generation of rocket scientists and astronauts. The film has been praised for reinvigorating public interest in the space program after years of slashed budgets and spending cuts. Scott Ridley’s film, The Martian, in which an astronaut played by Matt Damon is stranded on Mars and uses his scientific acumen to survive, has received glowing reviews and made nearly half a billion dollars worldwide. The most visible boost for NASA’s image, however, came not from the agency’s own work, but from Hollywood. And in October, they released an ambitious plan intended to send astronauts to Mars within the next few decades. In September, the agency announced the discovery of flowing water on Mars, a finding that could signify the presence of life forms.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |