Definitely a "return of investment" mentality in today's space program. Budgets seem to be more and more influenced by an economically minded administration that is too short sighted to realize the possible long term advantages that I believe will greatly outweigh our current expenses. To me it's basically a debate between immediate monetary returns versus other advantages like continuing the tradition of exploration of the unknown - the final frontier. I'll bet Columbus had to go up against the funding critics in his time too. And look what ultimately happened. No one in his time could have imagined what his voyage would ultimately bring in terms of both economics and just plain discovery. I'm a firm believer that our journey into space is just the beginning of the greatest adventure humanity has ever known and that the ulitimate rewards have not even been imagined yet. We only really make progress when we learn from history, and that lesson should include that idea that the exploration of a new frontier can and probably will bring benefits to humanity that they can't even know of yet.
2006-08-07 12:56:07
·
answer #1
·
answered by gdt 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The design, construction, use and maintenance of space vehicles is expensive. So, the return on investment is the primary financial consideration. When the money comes from the private sector, as opposed to governments -as has happened in the last dozen years, that issue is more clear cut. When it is done by governments, the money comes from taxes, so there have to be results which can be shown to the taxpayers. Not all taxpayers agree on what is an acceptable result, so there are social and political ramifications to consider.
2006-07-30 18:29:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by roscoedeadbeat 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
without putting forward gay stuff like area exploration quenches our easy thirst for understanding, there are useful the reason why area exp. is sturdy. As pronounced previously, countless our modern technologies is thoroughly and rapidly derived from technologies created and used for area exploration. it is a definate economic equipment advance. also, NASA's funds is so freakin small at the same time as positioned next to at least something else on the country's foodstuff table. human beings can say it wastes money and easily trust that yet even if it did it wastes so little money.
2016-11-27 00:44:54
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because of the "RETURN ON INVESTMENT "issues and the fact that the United States needs to concentrate on it's infrastructure,ie. the problems with flooding in Louisiana, the problems (all of them ) at our northern and southern boarders , Our Military , lack of a functional civil defense and everything else that needs to be taken care of .......I believe that the space program needs to be funded by international funding .......The America of the 60s and 70s no longer exists. Someone else has to help foot the bill.... Other countries constantly benefit from our space program and it's accomplishments , it's time for the slackers to front us some money !
2006-08-07 15:17:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by cesare214 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Space Exploration v. $ to defend our Country? What's REALLY important?
2006-08-05 03:10:20
·
answer #5
·
answered by thewordofgodisjesus 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Fuel
Supplies
2006-07-30 18:21:16
·
answer #6
·
answered by Nicholais S 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
money
2006-08-07 13:06:26
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A-Z
2006-08-07 06:45:12
·
answer #8
·
answered by duc602 7
·
0⤊
0⤋