Why do we bother with space?

Question

I don't think we should spend billions of dollars on collecting rocks on the moon, or studying saturn's atmosphere, when there are people starving in africa and even here in the united states. Its a waste, we already know these planets are inhabitable. If we going to spend money on space, we should buy a laser satellite to blast asteroids if they are coming in our direction. Anything else is just plain wasteful. Your thoughts, please.

Answer 1

This sentiment has always seemed ridiculous to me.

First, space in the past has been a priority for political and military reasons. However, as it becomes evident that there are processes that can be done in microgravity that are difficult in earth's gravity we become more aware of the commercial applications that being in space will allow. These applications include not only earth based uses for the technology that got us there, but for things like medicines from crystals that only grow over time in microgravity. What kinds of things might we come up with given a microgravity lab and a few years to play with it? We don't know. We have a very limited capacity to do research in this manner; there have been only a relative handful of expirements done in that environment, as opposed to the R&D that goes on here on earth.

Second, the space program doesn't get as much funding as people seem to think it does, and it is constantly getting cut. When people advocating cutting the funding for the space program talk, they use the numbers from the budget but forget to point out that this is but a SMALL fraction of the US budget. They make it sound like there is nothing being spent on say, social security, when in fact, the social security budget for 2007 is a little over $586 billion, while NASA gets a paltry $15 billion-- social security gets almost 40 times what NASA does! In fact, NASA is somewhere in the bottom of the budget, barely getting table scraps!

Third, There is, on Earth, a finite amount of resources and space. Our population cannot continue to grow and still be expected to have a place to live and food to eat. There are only a few alternatives. 1) stop reproducing so much. 2) kill billions to keep the resources under control. 3) find somewhere else to expand to.

People seem to think that reproduction is a right, but there are people who do it just to get on welfare, or to get tax credits, or whatever, people who aren't ready, and such. It taxes our systems immensly. But it won't stop. In free society one can't require a birthing license, though it would possibly stop many people who shouldn't be having children from having fifteen. So population control this way seems remote. (Sorry if this seems harsh, I grew up in a big family that could barely eat, though most of the kids in it were adopted from families that were much worse)

Killing billions is not a teneble population control unless you believe that genocide is prefereable. If this is your belief, please stop reading this and go seek help.

So that leaves getting our butts into space.

Other reasons to colonize that direction--

1) It would be cool to look down on Earth and say, Ha! I'm really free now!
2) The science for getting there would be inmmensely useful on earth
3) people would have to be better educated to get there, and thus education could become a priority, possibly reducing ignorance and poverty overall (though unlikely that it could ever eliminate it)
4) Bringing people together through science and learning, understanding and sharing. Think about slowing wars by getting together to make spaceships!
5) Jobs. It would create a lot of jobs if space became a big industry.
6) Danger to the earth--asteroids and comets, and other things.

I'm sure there is more. As you can see, sure it is expensive, but the US barely spends anything. Sure the possible outcomes may be overly idealistic, but what ever happened to the basic doctrines of morals? We should all try to help each other, to learn and grow and discover new ways to help and whatnot.

Otherwise, on an earth where it's everyone for themselves, I hope the asteroid comes soon.

To infinty,and beyond!!!

Answer 2

I'm guessing you meant uninhabitable. Going to the moon in the 70's developed a lot of technology that we now use in our everyday lives. Whenever we have a large scale mission and we set our minds to achieve it, we begin to think of new devices and ways to do things and the creativity of the human mind produces all kinds of inventions and discoveries. Feeding starving people in Africa will probably increase our food distribution know-how. Honestly, the problem in Africa is more Aids than it is starvation. Here in the US? We have soup kitchens, church benevolence groups, etc that invest tremendous resources toward those who are down and out. There has to be a balance though.

I think you may have watched too many sci-fi movies on the last statement. "Blasting" asteroids with a laser beam is not a trivial thing. Where are we going to store the energy that the laser needs to blast something as large as an asteroid? Anything that is large enough to present a significant danger to Earth isn't going to be blasted out by a trivial device. It will take multiple "laser satellites" and a ton of energy. I'm not sure if we know how to generate the amount of energy needed for this to be done by laser. Currently, I would think we would need to send out some types of nuclear detonation device.

Answer 3

That is a very shortsighted way of looking at things. Mankind is an explorer. And space is indeed one of the final frontiers. Right now we are collecting basic information about our universe, which will come in rather handy later on.
The only reason people are starving is because their governments are badly flawed. When dictators sell off food donations in order to buy weapons and fancy cars, that is not something that can be stopped by scrimping a few pennies by cutting off our space program.
You also seem to have some strange ideas regarding our universe. Only the Earth is presently habitable. We cannot easily inhabit any other world in this solar system. And NOBODY has lasers that can 'blast asteroids' as you seem to think so easy.
You need to be better informed about the world you live in, and how it really works.

Answer 4

Case in point: a laser has only a very limited range. When shining a laser on the moon, the beam that started as hair thin is miles wide. The blasting effect of a laser is zero at any distance that could make deviating anything possible.
Second: the starving people in Africa do not have their food taken away by the people working for NASA. If you do a bit of reading, you will see that they are starving because they are a war, and that the extremists are preventing farmers from working their fields, and are also preventing international relief effort from reaching them.
Third: NASA's budget is $16.8 billion for 2007. Military expenditures for the whole world is over $1 trillion (that is 1000 billion). The US accounts for half of that ($532.8 billion, is the official military budget for the USA in 2007), so that in 12 days, the US spends more in military that the NASA over the whole year.
Fourth: the people working for NASA and the NASA contractor would be out of a job if they were not working for NASA, and without that job, well, they would be starving, wouldn't they?
Fifth: space research has a return on investment that is estimated at 7 to one, that means the $16.8 billion NASA spends will create jobs and economic returns estimated at over $100 billion.

As for the uninhabitability of the planets, may I point out that there are lots of places on this planet that are uninhabitable, but that does nto prevent them from having resources that can be exploited, like mines?

So, my opinion, is that you need to get a few facts right before you display your lack of knowledge.

Answer 5

This was silly when Carl Sagan used it as an argument for the existence of extraterrestrials. On both the microcosmic and macro-cosmic levels, distances are huge. Empty space is the norm. Get used to it. The universe does not conform to our sense of territory. Just because there is a lot of empty space does not mean some one should be living there. If that were true several western states should have much larger populations. Population requires water, good soil, resources, and a normal lack of deadly influences. Space is largely empty, and most stars are not good candidates for life development. Most planets don't exist in the habitable zone, and if they do they are not the correct mass. There are so many factors that have to be met for life to exist and thrive. Space is implacably deadly. Consider it amazing that life exists in as much of the universe as it does. That is the wonder.

Answer 6

Money spent on space science is small compared to the money spent on all science. Science in general is a good idea since all our modern technology that makes our lives so easy is based on science that 100 years ago seemed to have no economic value. Figuring out ways to deflect asteroids is included in this category.

Funding the international space station is a way to keep otherwise out of work rocket engineers from Russia from using their talents to make nuclear missiles for countries like North Korea.

Funding military space activities is just part of protecting the country. The military depend more than ever on space, like GPS, weather satellites, communication satellites and spy satellites. The military space spending is larger than the NASA space spending, but it is not reported as space spending, it is just mixed in with the rest of the defense budget, often in secret projects like spy satellites.

Answer 7

Almost everything that can be said has already been said, but I would like to add a few things. Do you like watching TV? Are weather forecasts useful? Is GPS useful? Do you have satellite radio? Is the Earth becoming overpopulated? ls protecting Earth from some extra-terrestrial disastor important? If you answer yes to any of these then you don't really think space exploration is a waste.

Answer 8

true in a sense, a lot of that stuff in space is already here on earth as chemicals, geology etc. i think a lot of that money should be spent on Health (esp. all that money on "war" in iraq) and addressing critical health issues like developing new drugs, antibiotics, cures, genetic research, more than an asteroid, we'll probably lose a third of the human race to some strain of a germ or bird flu, things like that have occurred much more often in our history as epidemics and pandemics, maybe fat cats and Bush are already inoculated and want to destroy off all opposing people as a big capitalist conspiracy, i think they are betting a dollar on it like movie Trading Places, except going to use germs to kill off non-wealthy by Bush and his dodo relatives

they do so much behind the scenes as "secret" operations, away from sight by the American people, i do not think our Founding Fathers intended for a country ruled by the people and of the people and for the people in a Democracy to be like that, can be scary (say cheese!)

this country (and "they" are turning the world) into an aristocracy and rule by and for the wealthy

Answer 9

We are trying to find new place to live. When we spend all natures resources, and multiply to 30 billion people we'll sure need more space. And the only way to create these is to find habitable planet (or to adjust inhabitable).

Answer 10

Because eventually we'll improve our life using space.

Solar power satellites, mining other planets, new places to live.

People must have made the same arguments about paying for expeditions to the New World in the 1500s.