Shouldn' the money we spend on space missions, be spend to fix our earth??

Question

Multibillions of dollars are being spent to do space missions. Missions like Mars are finding some alternative place to live on, but before we find suitable enviornment outside earth, our own enviornment would extinct and we won't be here. So why not use those billions of dollars to fix our enviornment (finding alternatives for petroleum etc.)?

This is my position paper. I really need your opinions on the topic!!
Thanks!

Thank you for your wonderful opinions. I also believe tha space exploration muy importante, but I have to write my paper on the opposite opinion...

Answer 1

The immediate need we have to address on planet Earth is the FLOODING. We must write to all the space agencies in the world to immediately begin HAULING WATER to the moon, Mars and all the other 169 moons in our Milky Way Galaxy.

Unfortunately, no one seems to understand that WATER and CO2 are the 2 main byproducts of aerobic respiration (breathing) and of hydrocarbon combustion (burning methane, butane, propane, jet fuel, gasoline). Although CO2 is a greenhouse gas that is responsible for global warming and rising sea levels, respiration and combustion contribute at least 50% to the rising sea levels.

NASA has spent billions $ searching for water all over the universe, when all they have to do is HAUL it to space. If not, all 17,000 islands are in danger of sinking under the oceans.

Answer 2

Do you think we're just shooting dollar bills into orbit? Research done is like bread on the waters, it comes back a hundredfold. For example, I did some research in Metal Oxide Semiconductors for NASA in the early 1970's. That knowlege was used to make electronics lighter and use less power. It eventually led to the development of Very Large Scale Integration Semiconductors and spawned the whole electronics and computer industry, which now returns in taxes more money every year that the entire cost of the space program to date. You want to stop space exploration? You willing to give up your computer, ipod and cell phone? Or do you just think that those things have always been around? Stop playing with text messages and go read a history book once in a while.

I remember when the Berlin wall came down. People said that was the end of the cold war and we didn't need the military any more. We'd be able to stop spending on the military and use the dollars for other things -- the "Peace Dividend", they called it. The only peace dividend we had was that about a million educated people were laid off and didn't have jobs any more, they didn't pay taxes that could be used for social programs, and we went into a recession for four years. Read your history. And I don't recall that the military was reduced any.

Answer 3

Last year, almost $3 billion was spent on Viagra, Cialis, and similar products. The benefits are physical pleasure and last less than 4 hours or else you must seek emergency care.

Last year, the top 10 movies grossed almost $3 billion. The benefits are personal entertainment and the movie lasts just over 2 hours.

Last year, over $10 billion was spent on bottled water. At almost a $1 per bottle, that is 10 billion plastic bottles in a landfill somewhere. The benefits are not having to fill a bottle in your kitchen sink?

Last year, NASA had a budget of just over $20 billion to explore space and perform other research for the good of man. The benefits in medical and technological advancement will last a lifetime.

Answer 4

Well, too much of it is based on opinion.. EX: "but before we find suitable enviornment outside earth, our own enviornment would extinct and we won't be here"

I think it should be the way it is; maybe a bit more on environment because it doesn't look like we're getting too far with space.

Answer 5

I don't think we can predict the challenges of the future well enough to say that we should focus on any one priority to the exclusion of all else. Yes, preserving the environment is important, as is feeding the hungry, curing disease, preventing overpopulation, and stopping war. But keep in mind that knowledge and intellect are the biggest advantages our race has. I think we have to continue to research and explore; you never know what you will find or when the knowledge is going to come in handy. You can look at it from a quasi-Darwinian point of view - that diversity promotes robustness and adaptability, or just say you shouldn't put all your eggs in one basket.

In any case, if you're looking for money wasters, space exploration is a fairly small player.

Answer 6

The space budget is a tiddly bit of the overall US budget and is a tiny fraction of the military budget. Check the actual figures spent on space and the publicly admitted military budget. Someone once said if the US military budget was halved it would still be the largest in the world by a fair way. If a tenth of the US military budget had been spent on space exploration there would already be permanent bases on Mars.

Answer 7

Why not used those TRILLIONS of dollars that the Iraq war has cost so far to fix the environment? Do a little research. Space exploration and the science it yields IS helping the environment. We wouldn´t even now that there is something wrong without satellites. And this on an annual budget that doesn´t even come close to the money spent on war per month...

Answer 8

Dr. Stephen Hawking says that, in all probability, if we don't figure out how to colonize space in the next 100 years, humanity will destroy itself.

Considering all that's going on ... I tend to believe him.

Moreover, with the Apollo program, for ever dollar spent in taxes, 9 dollars was pushed back into the economy in the form of new technology.

The ONLY good thing about Reagan's Star Wars program was the amount of technology pushed back into the economy.

If you look at the equation as taxes out, people wandering around in space ... yeah, it doesn't make sense.

It is *NOT* that simple. What if the future of humanity depends on it?

Answer 9

Yes, I do not think NASA has accomplished that much (unless there are things they have hidden from us). Its way too much money to be spending for such slow research. I think private companies should be able to get in on the action, that way whatever they are spending is what is donated to them, or what they have created that cuts costs way down. Besides which nobody owns space, so they cant very well prevent people who are following safety guidelines, from exploring space from a different angle than NASA has been. We would be better off spending that money on heathcare that works.

Answer 10

Well, why we should fix Earth? Considering that in contrary to what the mass media said, the Earth is actually just fine as it is. Plus it's not like that we really can easily break and/or fix the Earth with our current state of power.


Anyway. Studying the space enviroment enable people to better understand and appreciate the Earth, therefore making them to live better on Earth. The research to build the I.S.S. for example, have proven on how hard it is to create an Earth-like enviroment.

Even Earth based research like Biosphere 2 too have proven on how hard it is to create an Earth-like enviroment, though they mostly failed due their failure to recognise that even the originial Biosphere need support from other places such as the Earth's core. Biosphere 2 focused too much on surface and near surface enviroment that they forgot that Earth is a large place that is interconnected with other things.

Also, so far there's no other place known to humans that is just like Earth. It will teach them the specialness of Earth, how wealthy and precious it is.