Why don’t we return the proposed $200billion to those American’s who earned it, and ask them to donate their money to a voluntary "space fund." I have a sneaking suspicion that few people would consider the study of mars rocks the best value for their money. They'd much prefer to Spend the money on more hospitals, better school buildings, more police and help the poor and needy, poverty would be eliminated in America if all that money was spent wisely. There are more relevant issues to be pushed right here on earth: Aids, Alzheimer’s, agriculture, energy, the list goes on. Cancer research is far more important than anything on Mars. When funds are diverted to such nonsense as what America’s president is saying, the true cost is in lives. As you might already know, America has a rate on average of 1 in 8 people being below the poverty line. Do you not think that spending the money on taking away poverty for America’s people is more important then travelling to Mars? Imagine living in America and being a homeless person, and you watch the news with the president saying that America is going to be spending hundreds of billions of dollars on Space exploration to Mars. Think outside the square you live in? How would you feel if you were one of the 39 million people in America that happened to be in poverty. In the United States nearly 35 million Americans live below the government-defined poverty level, an increase of 1.7 million from the previous year. One out of every six children in America lives in poverty and one out of every ten families can not make ends meet.
Finally - is this where American’s would really want their hard-earned money going? What would the president tell himself to make it ok? Doing the cost-benefit analysis for the average American citizen - what are they really getting? What did they get from those trips to the moon? What else are they doing up there? Is that really where Americans would want their money going? Maybe I should we should ask the one in eight Americans below the poverty line and see what they have to say about it. I am most positive that they would much prefer to live in a house, be healthy and have enough food to get them by. They would much prefer to be out of poverty than to have their country wasting their money on the study of Mars rocks! I think America should not focus on going to Mars but instead focus on a campaign such as, one nation – free from poverty.
Once again, in Russia, the average per capita income is $145 a month - well below subsistence level in Moscow. More than half of all Russians - some 77 million people - live on less than $4 a day.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia went into an economic and social free fall. The population dropped - from 148 million in 1993 to 145 million this year - and life expectancy plummeted. The average Russian man won't live to see 60. Do you really think that this style of living is right? I don’t whatsoever. I think that Russia’s money could be spent much more wisely on creating a better style of living for the people of Russia and also to eliminate poverty. If Russia doesn’t think about spending their money on lives I think there could be some tension in the country between the space lovers and the space haters. This is just another common example of why space exploration is a waste of money.
In the end, money is always needed, but it is not always available, and that is why it is a problem now and why it will be a major problem, facing space exploration in the future.
My next point will be focusing on the relevance of space exploration to citizens:
Why may I ask would anyone want to travel to a hostile, lifeless environment like Mars? You wouldn't want to raise your kids there. And though scientists and politicians downplay it, cosmic radiation will likely fry any men on Mars. America’s Martian rover may be working, but hasn't the space station sprung a leak? Dangerous manned expeditions, yield fewer scientific results than cheaper robotic missions. And space exploration has relatively little practical application. Finding evidence of ancient microbes will neither "heal our cosmic loneliness," nor lead to the construction of condo units on Mars. In short, I ask, what's the point?
This is the real weakness of the space lovers' case. The shuttle is a useless link in a nonexistent chain of vehicles and settlements that is supposed to point us to the moon and Mars. Like the shuttle, the space station lacks any real purpose, and is consequently plagued by cost overruns, delays, and technological promises that don't turn out.
As for the idea of inhabiting mars, where human society can be freed of
its chronic conflicts, this is most naive. If Martian settlements are controlled enough to be free of crime and conflict, they'll be too small to matter. If settlements are big enough to accommodate a significant population, they'll be troubled by Earthly conflicts. And I doubt large settlements will ever be cost-effective — at least in any time frame that matters.
Major problems such as financing, communication and culture
conflicts are important in the journey to space, because they all have the
potential to disrupt progress. When people think of troubles that are related to space, they tend to overlook one of the most obvious and most important
problems, financing. Money may prevent America or Russia from leaving the very earth we stand on in the first place.
My third point is all about the risk factor of space exploration;
Yes, we conquered inhospitable Everest, "because it's there." But there are no Everest condos, and lots of climbers died. Is Mars California, or Everest? It makes a difference. Whaling ships carried repair equipment, but that was cost effective because whalers brought back whale oil. Will a moon base lead to profitable mining, or will it always be an expensive outpost? And don't forget how many whalers went down.
Space lovers take it for granted that space conquest can be understood on the model of earthly exploration. If Mars is like Everest, America will get glory — but little practical benefit, much expense, and great danger. The mysteries of space should be left untouched. Mankind has already destroyed earth why should we destroy other planets?
In the wake of the Columbia disaster, there are many heartfelt, but fundamentally contradictory, statements being made about NASA. Until these contradictions are reconciled, it will be difficult —if not impossible— to set a national space policy. Public opinion, as judged by recent polls, NASA endeavors are too risky.
With the recent demise of multiple Mars bound robotic probes the debate over human space exploration will be reinvigorated. These losses prove that human space exploration is too risky, if we can't land a robotic probe on Mars, how can we be sure we can land a human crew?
But the risks and limitations of this project are real. Even with an inspiring
vision to organize our efforts, the challenge may prove beyond our current
technological or financial capacity. And astronauts could die, perhaps
discouraging the public before the goal is achieved.
My last but not least point is all about space exploration and it creating tension and division.
The wrecked spaceships and the dead astronauts would be echoed all too eerily in real life during the Space Race that occupied the mindsets of the American and Russian people during the two decades that were the 1950's and the 1960's as well as several years into the early '70's. Tensions between the two super powers seemed to lessen somewhat with the historic Apollo-Soyuz linkup, which symbolized that space might become a orbital battleground. Although this did not occur back then it could easily occur now. First there was the race of who would reach space first, then it was who would be the first nation to stand on the moon, and now I believe that it is who is going to reach Mars first. If Russia and America take this too seriously, it could result in a war or bad conflict between the two nations. This can be compared in way to the cultural differences between the United States and the Taliban. These differences started to surface in the manner of devastating attacks. The same could happen between the America and Russia. Because of their ego to be the first to reach Mars, and because of their differences in the matter.
In the end, there are a myriad of problems that face space exploration. Some of them are small and easy to overcome, but others are huge and need more planning. The recent Columbia tragedy shows us that we have not conquered space yet and that there are still many things that can go wrong. Some of the problems that occur here on Earth will also occur in space. These problems cannot just be left on the back burner and ignored. Therefore space exploration is simply not worth the money.
