I have been reading about all the money used to send ships to Mars and to Jupitor' rings to explore etc, but don't you think it is more appropriate to use all that money to benefit man here on Earth. The bridge colapsed in Minn, and many bridges in NY and NJ are obsolete, so don't you think all that money would be more wisely spent on rebuilding or fixing or making new bridges, or should more bridges fail. What good is it if we can go to outer space if we can't go into the next state?
2007-08-05 14:13:01 · 15 answers · asked by joan 4 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Yes. There are certainly more urgent investments we should do to sustain our environment. Once we have figured out to live in balance with nature we can continue with the idea how to escape our planet. For the time being this is our only home so we should better keep it in good shape.
2007-08-05 18:43:10 · answer #1 · answered by Fast Eddie 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
First, your assumption is that the money would instead go to bridge upkeep, which it likely wouldnt, instead it would go to national defense, or tax cuts. Also, of the thousands of people employed for NASA (and related companies) would be out of the job and wouldnt be of much use to bridge repair. Try and get Texas, Florida, and California's lawmakers to abandon those job creating industries.
But, the most important reason in my opinion, is that by exploring space, we are forced to develop new technologies and building materials. Many things we use in life originated from the space program. If we explore Mars and need to invent a stronger building to survive, that tech could then be used on bridges and structures here. Without the immediate need, technology comes slower.
We have enough money for both, it comes down to spending it smarter.
2007-08-05 18:10:40 · answer #2 · answered by Simon H 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Valid point.
Exploration of any sort should be an important part of any society. Without it, there are no advances.
Our government isn't gonna fix bridges if they're not falling apart on a mass scale. As ugly as it sounds, one bridge here and there isn't really a big deal in the eyes of the government. The powers that be don't give a s*h*i*t if a couple of people die here and there from something they KNOW is substandard.
It's not only bridges. It was widely known that the levys in New Orleans were obsolete and in horrible disrepair but nothing was done. If a small modification can take care of it for now, it will do; even if it's tantamount to putting a ban-aid on a broken leg.
The government doesn't even care for it's own soldiers for pete's sake. There are countless of ways that they could make it safer for the men on the battlefield but they do nothing.
You can talk about the money that's being wasted in space exploration, but even that and infrastructure PUT TOGETHER doesn't come CLOSE to how many of our tax dollars are being wasted on ENTITLEMENTS.
Welfare, food stamps, free medical care, all the gimmes, all the goodies that most people don't even NEED are what's sucking our wallets dry.
THAT is what the government needs to cut back on.
2007-08-05 14:31:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
I think Sri Vidya Rajgopalan has given the correct answer. But the Answer is very long. Let me explain you in short. Ram built a Bridge instead of ship because he thought, if in the war with Ravana more army of Varana is required then it will be easy to bring reinforcement through a Bridge Than to send ship.
2016-05-19 16:22:25 · answer #4 · answered by lorine 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We spend less than 0.1 percent of our budget on space exploration, which (despite chronic underfunding) has resulted in numerous advancements in engineering, chemistry, biology, etc. that you probably take for granted. For more information check out this link: http://exploration.grc.nasa.gov/Exploration/benefits.htm
I wonder how many bridges we could have fixed with all the money we've paid to Haliburton to rebuild Iraq? Now that's a serious chunk of change!
2007-08-05 15:47:03 · answer #5 · answered by 222 Sexy 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If no money were spent on space exploration, then there would still be no reason to think that more money would be spent on bridges or anything else. All that would happen is that less money would be spent by the government.
2007-08-05 16:36:11 · answer #6 · answered by steve b 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The problem is not money. The problem is all these environmental laws that prevent work from being done more quickly. It takes less than a year to design a bridge. It takes ten years to get all the environmental permits.
2007-08-05 17:23:05 · answer #7 · answered by Stan the Rocker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
money spent on space exploration is a drop in the bucket compared to money spent on the military. by far the largest cost saving would be made by refraining from invading foreign countries. besides are these costs interchangeable - is the federal government responsible for maintaining bridges? isn't that the responsiblity of state governments?
2007-08-05 14:24:46 · answer #8 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The two have nothing to do with each other. We could do both if that were a priority for us. It's not like we need astronauts to inspect bridges, or structural engineers to fly spaceships.
2007-08-05 18:49:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
If you put togheter all the money spent on space, and compare it with all the money that US spends on warfare an defense, Nasa ends up looking poor.
Our goverment should spend more money on peace so we dont have to spend on war.
Besides, there is no explanation yet, better wait for the investigation...
2007-08-05 14:24:42 · answer #10 · answered by Sebastian 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋