It’s been a seminal year for NASA. In September, the agency announced the discovery of flowing water on Mars, a finding that could signify the presence of life forms. And in October, they released an ambitious plan intended to send astronauts to Mars within the next few decades. The most visible boost for NASA’s image, however, came not from the agency’s own work, but from Hollywood. 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 film has been praised for reinvigorating public interest in the space program after years of slashed budgets and spending cuts. But can a space film really save NASA?
Current 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. Supporters note the film is more inclusive than past space films, depicting a NASA team not solely comprised of white men. 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.”
NASA itself has been quick to jump on the film’s bandwagon. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Yet this pattern seems familiar. 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. These hopes were for naught, however: Public enthusiasm didn’t translate to an increase in funding. 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. 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. 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. Opinions 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.
It’s a mistake to believe that public enthusiasm was ever responsible for the high level of NASA funding. 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. 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.”
Even so, NASA anticipates a budget increase in the next few months, which some may consider a result of the wave of public enthusiasm. NASA, seemingly banking on increased funding, is spending money on its programs at higher levels than would be sustainable given its current budget. Even though the continuing resolution that currently funds NASA hasn’t increased its budget at all, recent activity in Congress suggests that a budget increase is on the horizon. NASA requested $1.36 billion for its Space Launch System program in its proposed 2016 budget, but an appropriations bill passed by the House offered $1.85 billion, and one passed in the Senate offered $1.9 billion. While it would be easy to suggest that The Martian, or public support for NASA more generally, contributed to this increase in funding for space travel, these appropriations bills were drafted in June, before The Martian was released and, as always, national and domestic concerns were more influential.
Spending on domestic programs increased as a whole this year due to a complicated period of political maneuvering, culminating in Speaker John Boehner and President Obama’s compromise on an increase in discretionary domestic and defense spending before Boehner’s resignation. The budgetary windfall on the horizon, then, is not the result of cultural influence or public support, but merely an increase in spending generally.
The space program more specifically has also seen a rise in support among lawmakers, but not because of a blockbuster film. NASA relies on Russia to transport American astronauts to the International Space Station, an arrangement which, given current tensions between the United States and Russia, seems unsustainable or, at the very least, uncomfortable. In an open letter in WIRED magazine, NASA Administrator Major General Charlie Bolden argued that, given the contentious relationship that exists between the United States and Russia, the $490 million the United States pays to Russia for their space tech is money that could and should be spent in the United States on NASA and other domestic space programs.
In addition, the increase in funding specifically for space programs is a preference that is laced with other domestic political concerns. Republican lawmakers have attempted to increase funding for space programs at the expense of NASA’s other programs, particularly the Earth Sciences division which, among other things, studies climate change. Senator Ted Cruz has said, “Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space.” Given tense U.S.-Russia relations and fears that the United States is spending money abroad, space programs are more politically popular than programs that focus on environmental concerns.
The increase or stagnation of NASA funding for space technology is directly connected to international and domestic politics, rather than NASA’s public image. Despite sweeping claims that The Martian will be responsible for the first manned mission to Mars, NASA appropriations seem fairly independent of Hollywood’s influence.
But these films still have a place in the wider culture. The 1958 Space Act, which established NASA, mandates that the agency provide “the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof.” Participating in the production of films like The Martian is not just a public relations scheme to try to garner more funding. Rather, it’s part of NASA’s core purpose. If the government is going to spend billions of dollars on far-reaching scientific inquiries, the public should be able to enjoy these discoveries. This paints The Martian in a slightly less practical, but more aspirational light. Not every decision NASA makes is about funding. NASA, as an organization, is meant to inspire, and teaming up with Hollywood in movies like The Martian helps the agency meet its mandate.