But those who've long dreamed of humans becoming a truly spacefaring race argue that exploring space provides down-to-earth benefits in areas such as health, mining and security and more inspirational benefits, too here are some of the most compelling arguments for continuing the exploration of space. We will because of the cost of spending each second on earth, see, the universe is expanding so if we leave earth now, we will have an advantage, time and also because of overpopulation and lack of food resources. Another common argument is: “nasa benefits society, therefore we must fund it so that our society will prosper” if that were the guideline for determining government funding, then our houses, cars, food, and everything else we own should also be paid for by the government. Should we send humans to mars a land rover is blazing trails for human exploration of mars, but opponents of space exploration say it is a waste of money by teresa welsh , staff writer aug 6, 2012.
We pave a path among the stars for the eventual expansion of humanity into a universe whose mysteries we will conquer, one eureka at a time so why should we fund the space program ultimately, it. Nasa simply stopped being a priority nasa funding was a substantial part of the federal budget there was a burst of funding and scientific activity in the 1960's, leading up to the 1969 moon. Nasa is no exception, as the webb telescope, the successor of the hubble, has fallen behind schedule and gone over budget congress has continued to fund the project, as representatives are loath. The importance of exploration (continued) american exploration editor's note: this is the first in a series of essays on exploration by nasa's chief historian, steven j dick.
Each year, nasa celebrates one invention out of many spinoff technologies as the nasa commercial invention of the year a solar powered refrigerator designed to support life on the moon, but with huge application on earth, earned the prestigious title for 2011. Yes nasa is more important than funding a war the government should definitely fund nasa because all our worldly problems seem pointless when there is an asteroid heading towards our planet. When nasa announced that it would then fund two discovery missions, well it just seemed like venus was set to see our return worst case scenario, one venus mission would get approved, but after. Editor's note: robert zubrin, an astronautical engineer, is president of the mars society and author of “the case for mars: the plan to settle the red planet and why we must,” recently updated and republished by simon & schuster in the opinion piece “mars can wait. Why nasa shouldn’t be funded by the government there are a number of ways to spend a $193 billion annual budget we could pay for 194 million young adults in the united states to attend a public 4-year university , we could provide 187 million people with health care , or we could use the money to fund the national aeronautics and space.
We are not going to justify going to mars by what we bring back” to many, it seems a bit of madness to dream that someday we could build a colony on mars then again, perhaps not. Nasa will refocus its efforts on developing next generation propulsion technologies to get us to far-flung destinations faster, cheaper, and safer than we can with the liquid hydrogen and oxygen propellants that we’ve used since the 1960’s. In fact, it is unconstitutional to fund nasa with the tax-dollars of americans' and the founding fathers are probably rolling in their graves if nasa was doing anything important, then it will be funded by the private industry so we should let the private sector take care of it.
The earth is a planet: why we explore space in the united states, for example, the entire nasa budget—everything from the space station, to climate monitoring, to aircraft efficiency research, to mars rovers—takes up less than one percent of the federal pie the planetary fund. How much should we spend on america’s space program does nasa’s budget need an infusion of billions of dollars the way these questions are answered gives some indication of why one believes we have a space program, what it should be doing and whether money is the key needed to unlock the barriers hindering our access to space. Nasa has done a lot of work in studying air quality, climate change, alternative energy, and near earth objects which as we all know from the movies can destroy the earth any day now without warning, unless we have a group of oil drillers, a nuke, and bruce willis.
I'd rather fund programs that help this planet than escape the problems we've created 3 years ago from a green in austin, tx to me the space travel is a possible but not entirely practial idea. Is exploring mars worth the investment yes, so long as it's viewed as a precursor to human habitation curiosity, as the mars science laboratory rover is known, is over budget at $25 billion. The world as we know it only exists because of plucky explorers from bygone centuries, so why are governments giving. To infinity and beyond: more wasteful spending at nasa the obama administration is squandering government dollars on useless space programs.