Exploring space is expensive. Would the money be better spent on other things???

Answer 1

The answer is: no, in the long-term. While there is need for funding for problems on Earth such as poverty, epidemics, healthcare, pollution, and countless other issues, the long-term advances that the space program has (and is continuing to) give far outweigh the moneys spent here and now. Consider:
-a world without cellular phones, the internet, GPS, real-time event reporting around the world.
-how about a world without such medical advances such as artificial limbs or high-tech diagnostic machines (MRI, CAT)
-what about (for gamers), a world without the simple joystick? Or artificial intelligence devices? Or virtual reality?

While these (and countless other) advances perhaps could have happened on their own, the reality is that moneys spent on the space program has made the development happen quicker, and more efficiently than otherwise it would. If we want to fix the problems of today, we should reduce funding in space research. If we want to reduce the problems of tomorrow, it is imperitive we continue to do so.

Answer 2

No, it wouldn't. All science investigation is expensive. And rarely pays off in direct benefits.

But science is the foundation of engineering and technology. If money in the past had been spent on whatever "better things" were politically correct at the time, we would have no aircraft, no cars, no antibotics or other modern drugs, no computers, etc.

Specifically, here's some of the things we've already gained from space research:
Medical diagnostic technology
Miniturized computer components, and everything that goes with them--the Internet, GPS systems, cellphones, etc.
Weather satellites that save thousands of lives every year.
Communications satellites.
The newest generation of aircraft that are 20% more fuel efficient, stronger, and safer--are built with materials developed by NASA.

And so on.

If you want a better future--invest in science. Or accept the inevitable decline of America into a second-rate economic and technological power. Because other countries ARE investing in space exploration and technology. We either compete--or we will be the losers. And our children.

Answer 3

It should mostly be spent on making space exploration cheaper. It's not entirely accurate to simply say 'space exploration is expensive'. What's expensive is our current ways of going about it. In the future, it is likely that methane rockets, space elevators or pinwheels will make launching payloads much cheaper, while orion drives and light sails will make it easier to move things around once they are in space. There's no good reason for space exploration to be as prohibitively expensive as it is.

Answer 4

I agree that our first priority should be in things like education, health care, environmentally responsive policies.

But let's not put the blame on space exploration for sucking the money out of those programs. The money we spend on the space shuttle program is about 1 percent of the money we spend on defense and war. Our defense budget is larger than the COMBINED defense budgets of all the other countries in the world.

Our current national philosophy seems to be that people of other cultures are threats; that we need to either protect ourselves from them or beat the crap out of them. We seem to be turning into a fortress country.

So, here's another idea: How about we cut the defense budget by 10%? With the money saved, we could probably double our space program, and fund universal health care to boot.

And we would STILL have the largest defensed budget in the world.

Answer 5

Good question. The rich should fund it after feeding all the hungry people in the world.

But think of all the gains from exploration in general, where would we be without exploration on Earth. What will be found in space, and will we get any benefit out of it in our lifetime.

Probably have to be a futurist thinker to see the long term benefits but it would help in reconciling the cost to know how it helps us here and now.

Answer 6

Pro football is expensive, (even more expensive than NASA, if you add up all the football teams in the U.S. and the cost of all the games and stadiums and TV rights so on). Would THAT money be better spent on other things? It depends on who you ask. I cannot believe most people would give up football for feeding the poor or whatever, so don't make me give up space flight for the same reason.

Answer 7

Commander Swigert of the Apollo programme got here to NZ and that i asked him this question at a lecture. He spoke back; assume the Martians despatched an unmanned probe to Earth and it landed interior the Nevada barren region. it would take some pictures, examine some soil samples yet while there have been Martians on board, they had discover that merely over the horizon became the city of Las Vegas. ok, automated probes are greater smart now than they have been returned then in 1972 however an analogous argument nonetheless applies. yet I trust Nick S who says quickly television and so on would be so stable that it would be merely like being there. understand that action picture The magnificent Voyage, approximately some docs shrinking themselves and taking a submarine journey by way of a affected person's bloodstream? quickly we are going to be waiting to do greater applicable than that. With holographic television, haptics (duplicate of the experience of touch) and a few different concepts, you would be waiting to regulate a microscopic sub, or interstellar probe, or force around Titan without the possibility of actual being there yet with each and every of the sensory inputs.

Answer 8

No offense, but you don't understand economics at all. When you spend money on outer space, the money does not go to outer space. The money is spent on Earth where it benefits people. Liekwise, while the space shuttle or other rocket goes into space, the accomplishments (astronomy, communication, surveilance) benefits people on Earth.

Answer 9

It's expensive just now because we have only taken the first steps. When we start reaping the rewards and technology gives us cheaper means to access space (such as a space elevator) then the expense will have been worthwhile.

Answer 10

Yes. Exploring the earth. Feeding the hungry. Ending war.