![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() |
![]() |
You are in: Talking Point | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]()
|
![]() |
Friday, 10 November, 2000, 15:17 GMT
Do we need manned space travel?
![]() The first crew of three astronauts has docked with the International Space Station, a sixteen-nation project costing around 60 billion dollars.
Scientists want to use the ISS to study the long-term effects of prolonged space life on the human body. Politically it is hoped that the project will strengthen the relationship between Russia and the West. Critics say that the ISS is too expensive and that most of the experiments could be conducted more cheaply in remote-controlled, unmanned operations. Is manned space travel a waste of money? Are the potential scientific benefits too marginal to justify the costs? Or is this a wise investment in the future of mankind? We took your calls on the subject in our LIVE phone-in programme "Talking Point On Air". Email us if you would like to add to the debate.
Select the link below to watch Talking Point On Air
Your comments since the programme
Compare the US budget for defence and that for both manned and unmanned space programmes - the former dwarfs the latter. When we significantly reduce global expenditure on arms we can afford to invest in the environment and space programmes - all very worthy areas in my opinion.
Let's ban space travel and exploration. Ban anything that makes people think we can accomplish almost anything.
If we start landing men on the Moon, on Mars and in space stations - people may actually start thinking we can achieve great things on earth as well. Now that is dangerous, BAN IT ALL CALL IT OFF!!
Space is worth investing in. So long as it is the US and Russians who pay for it, I have no objections.
It is a shame that mankind cannot give priority to feeding, clothing and educating people on earth first.
More money should certainly be spent on alleviating Third World poverty but why on earth take it from the space programme? Why not take it from military spending instead?
It is ridiculous to say that space research does not contribute to humans' welfare on Earth. With satellite technology, we can monitor natural disasters and save the people they affect. We can predict the productivity of agriculture and thus make strategic decisions on how to feed humanity better. Permanent human presence on the orbit only contributes to all these undertakings. Progress has to go on and the Mir and ISS are its necessary steps, although not immediately profitable. Otherwise, would the hungry population have been better off if we still considered the world to be flat?
There are two important aspects of scientific exploration:
The first can be done remotely, in part. But the second is much more effective if the larger context is seen. Remote sampling cannot determine context beyond the data that is actually collected. People, on the other hand, seem to have trouble confining themselves to just the question being addressed. This, I believe, is why the scientific method is so successful.
If mankind has messed up earth, and many would say he has, what right has he to go and mess up another planet?
Any exploration will be extremely enhanced by having a platform in space, as the ISS will be. Rescue missions to Mars will be quicker and more effective with the ISS there, not to mention the technological benefits mankind will receive, i.e. think of how meteorology and communications would be without the space race.
I believe that the Space Programmes should be reduced to only about 50% for the next 10 years. I am suggesting this, because, like the Berlin Wall, which collapsed after 40 years, these programmes will die a natural death 10 years from now. As a solution, I propose that the other 50% be spent in the Third World on aid programmes. This I am sure will make this World a better
place to live in.
Whilst I was in the U.K. in August, I saw the Space Station. It looked like Saturn, but travelling at a considerable speed. Very impressive, however, for the amount of money spent on it, I don't think it was worth it. Surely the money could be better spent exploring our own planet. There are many places which we know very little about. How about using some money to fund exploration of the ocean depths, the forests in Zaire or Brazil. There are many areas where funding could prove beneficial and, until funds are spent there, how do we know what benefits we may obtain. What about African medicines, herbal remedies etc. The list is unending!
It is clear that had the money spent so far on the I.S.S. had been spent on finding less costly access to space, we could probably have built the I.S.S. in the near future for far less money and would have far cheaper access to space for other reasons to boot.
I agree that the monstrous sum of money spent on the ISS could be used to...perhaps feed hungry people in developing countries and saving the environment. But there have been many reports from astrophysicists have predicted that the sun will end, when all of the hydrogen supply the Sun has is exhausted, it will swell outward as a monstrous, planet-engulfing red giant and spell the end of the solar system...in about 5 billion years. Sure this may be an extremely long time and we would not have the slightest of worry about it but as we know, space travel and any of such activities are brought about in a matter of light years, its not really too early to start now is it. Or wait till its a bit too late and have our future generation to be looking back saying things like, "If only we started preparing earlier then we would not be exposed to this threat to our kind".
It is a large sum but its a investment into the future survival of the man kind.
Ever since new years', the fact that we're now living in the 21st century seemed of little significance to me, it never really sunk in. Until the other week, when 'Zvezda' blasted off to the ISS, with a Pizza hut slogan plastered all over the rocket. (I wonder if they'll deliver to station?)
Perhaps even more amazingly, it was a Russian vehicle; Americanisation (woops, sorry, globalisation) really is spreading to all frontiers these days, even to the final one. The point is that the next few decades will see space exploration shift from being politically to commercially based. Which is a good thing, because there are enough problems on our own planet for governments to focus their expenditure on at the moment. Corporate sponsorship is the way to go - that way scientists can bring back exciting space rocks without diverting money from, say, a nation's healthcare or emergency services. Exploring the universe is no different in principle from those activities that private individuals do for kicks; diving to the ocean floor perhaps, or climbing Everest. It just costs a lot more.
Cameron Gray, Sydney, Australia
As far as the advantages of exploring space, we wouldn't know those until we do it. After all, it is only a 100 years since man first took wings and today we know how much it has contributed our development. We spend a lot of dollars for science being done on our own planet, so spending $60 billion for the ISS is pretty much acceptable. I'm sure it will go a long way in contributing to our knowledge of medicine and life itself.
Space exploration and habitation is vital for the safety of the human race. The possibility that Earth could be made hostile to human life due to a natural or man made disaster make it essential that we expand, lest all mankind die in one foul swoop.
The money spent on the space station project should be diverted to research into the major pressing problems facing the survival of the human race. Namely, maintaining the environment, finding energy replacements, third world education, population control, water resources (etc, etc).
The benefits derived by continuing the space station are tenuous and affect only a few already wealthy countries, companies and individuals. The fairy tale of migration to space of large populations must be exposed as the arrogant nonsense it is. At this point in history we need above all to keep our feet on the ground, not planted firmly in mid-air.
Glenn Hampson, Melbourne, Australia
While it's clear that the funding for space travel could be put to better, immediate use on earth at the moment, man being in space is about more than simple experiments or orbiting space stations; it is about understanding our existence in the universe and our future in it.
Your comments before we went ON AIR
Sending more and more people into space is MAD. The scientific benefits are minimal and the costs astronomical. At the same time as we will spend about US$100 billion on the space station, we have so many under-funded scientists (myself included) attempting to do essential and inspiring work on earth. At the same time people are dying due to lack of clean water and mosquito born disease such as malaria and we are also destroying our life-sustaining environment. Let's direct our scientific effort to bring benefits for all rather than blowing it on ill-conceived expensive PR exercise.
The poorest and weakest will always benefit from space technology that monitors crops, warns of floods and bring education to all.
A. Blake, Leeds, UK
It would seem to be very short sighted to quibble about sending mankind out into space. This world of ours is a dynamic one and prone to constant mass extinctions. Unless our politicians put short-term considerations to the back of their minds we will have a very uncertain future indeed. We are NOT masters of our planet - rather it is the other way around. I'm sure that volcanologists and palaeontologists would agree. Historians, too, would do well to look at the events of AD 535!
Quite apart from all the other issues raised I think the cost is the biggest scandal. Over $60 billion will be spent on the space station. I work in overseas development work and even the smallest proportion of that money could be used to good effect by so many development agencies all over the world. I regularly hear on the news how the World Food Programme or Oxfam or some other charity are making an appeal for may be $2m for disaster relief and have been unable to reach their target. Surely we would be better spending the money on solving our problems here on this planet rather than finding or creating problems in other places in the universe. Once we have got our act together on this planet we will be ready to visit others.
Jorge Almeida-Chiriboga, Queensland, Australia
Man was allocated this planet to live on. He will not be able to adapt to any other outer space environment. His vanity and presumption make him waste billions with an impossible dream. He can go to Mars, but that'll be all, apart from the huge amounts of money wasted for nothing. It seems that we want to run away from the hostile surroundings in which we live. We should instead apply our energy and resources to help each other to live peacefully on this beautiful earth.
Shame on the so-called developed world. The huge resources wasted on the manned space station do not belong to America, Russia and Britain alone. The pollution and repercussions will affect everybody. You do not understand what poverty and deprivation mean. People starve on Earth because of the resources you waste!
Thom Goddard, London, UK
All research is worthwhile since by definition we do not know what the result will be. There is a tendency today to assume that research is like any other occupation, where you put in resources at one end and the desired result comes out of the other. This is not how research works. Some advances are made in this way but the really important discoveries have usually been made either by accident (penicillin is a good example of this) or by researchers being permitted to do their own thing. By putting men into space there are huge numbers of problems which have to be solved and the solutions to them can benefit us all.
Dmitri V. Borodinov, Kiev, Former Soviet Union
Exploration can never be bad in itself. But its worthiness depends upon the good it does for human kind.
The International Space Station and space exploration per se are not a waste of money because, in the long run, research always pays off. Those who would say the money could be better spent aiding flood and drought victims or eradicating diseases such as polio should remember that earlier research has allowed us to develop the vaccines and predict long-range weather phenomena such as El Niño, thus allowing us to prepare for such natural catastrophes
and limit their effects.
We had better develop the technology to leave this planet, because it will not be habitable too much longer.
Glenn Ashton, Cape Town, South Africa
Gordon White, London, UK
It is one small step to independence. Independence from the Earth and its biosphere. This has to be the future for the human race. Of course investing in the long term has never been something easy to do. But it is the right thing to do.
Chris Parfitt, Bristol, UK
One feature of all astronauts is they are all selected for being above average human beings both physically and intellectually. I think it would be good to do an experiment on how space flight affects the less intelligent. I suggest that the next flight is manned by Posh and Becks.
Maybe a permanent platform in space will be the first step in giving everyone (especially politicians) the chance to look down on our planet and see that there are no countries or boundaries to fight over. We all live on this rocky globe together, lets try to get along!
Winston Waller, Somerset West, South Africa
Space. . .the final garbage dump. Everything we touch, we destroy. Yes, it is a waste of money. Why not spend it instead, on preserving our own environment, and the poor beasties we're wiping off the face of the Earth?
The human race's innate curiosity should never be constrained by mere money. We simply do not know what benefits are to be derived from exploration, but exploration is always worth the money.
Why do people go on holiday rather than just looking at pictures of the place. I don't believe that a place can be fully appreciated/understood until it has been seen. Perhaps if more people could see this planet from above and realise how small it is, we would appreciate it all the more.
Michael, UK
I think exploration is worthwhile, but should be geared towards exploring the other planets that exist in our solar system. These planets may hold chemical elements that could be tested to see if they hold any new properties that could help with medical science. It is possible that the answers to finding the cures for diseases may be contained within the makeup of another planet.
I think the 60 billion dollars spent on the International Space Station should have been spent on scientific research into faster-than-light-speed space travel, medical research or other scientific research. How about feeding the hungry of the Third World and giving them clean water-supplies or housing the homeless throughout the world, health-care etc.
Of course it is important that man stays in space. Unmanned spacecraft can do a lot of useful science, but human scientists are required for flexibility and those leaps of imagination, which move science forward. When NASA finally put a scientist on the Moon, his findings far outstripped in importance all the previous work done by unmanned probes, and that was all in a few short hours. As regards to the expense, blame not manned space but paper pushers in Washington, who have spent a fortune trying to cut costs.
I think there's no practical purpose for all this space exploration at the moment. Given that the Russians couldn't scrape together the resources necessary to rescue a hundred of their own sailors, I find it disgusting that they can afford the billions necessary to support a space program. We should get our houses in order before we start spreading our problems into space as well.
Jane Krzyzanowski, Toronto,Canada
I've read the cost of the ISS could have paid for 5 Moon Bases. Surely bases on the Moon would be a greater foothold in space than this white elephant.
With water, metals and many other resources, the Moon is our next great frontier, and yet, 30 years on from those first tentative steps, we have not been back. Why?
The lunar craters are just waiting to be transformed into biospheres, where, in low gravity conditions, humans with man-made wings will be able to 'fly' and trees will grow to hundreds of feet in height. It astounds me that they would rather build this 'UN in the sky.'
Exploration has always been a driving ambition for humankind, and the combined international effort can only promote better relations between the countries involved. Arguments that such huge sums of money could be better spent on humanitarian efforts tend to fall flat when one compares the cost to other areas of the U.S. budget. For example, the annual military budget of the United States is more than five times the total cost of the ISS.
A price cannot be put on the value of being able to leave this world. Until that time we are hostage to the same fate as the dinosaurs, be it through cosmic accident in the form of a meteor, lunatics with nuclear weaponry or just through simple inaction on environmental issues. There is a very real and dangerous chance that this world of ours could become uninhabitable and humanity would be extinct. All avenues to avoid this fate be they through prevention or be they through avoiding having all our eggs in one basket are worth our time and effort. That's before we even count the scientific benefits.
Manned space flight is essential to the survival of the planet. We have seen frequently over the last few years that unmanned space vehicles just can't cut it. You need a human in the loop, on site to fix things when they break. Without exploration of space by manned vehicles, we will never develop, or be able to test properly, the technology for reaching and colonising the other planets of our solar system. We just need to make sure that we spend the vast sums of money that it will take wisely, and that will take strong, determined and single-minded Leadership, which is where I fear we will fail.
Halima Brewer, Jaén, Spain
I think it's a total waste of money. There are people DYING in Africa, and instead of helping them, we are spending millions of dollars on useless space missions... i think it will be better if we put that money into something which can help mankind. e.g. medical research for the cure of deadly diseases.
I'm truly pleasantly surprised so many agree. Exploring is what we do. Our past is filled with exploration. First out of Africa, then from Europe to America. Now from Earth to the next beyond. It is a defining characteristic of the human being.
I cannot help but shake my head with disbelief at the number of people that somehow seem to think that spending more money on food and hospitals is the answer to world hunger and sickness. You give someone some food and they will be hungry again next week? You heal someone and who will heal them next time they are sick? You will not solve hunger and sickness by taking money from space ( or other ) research but by addressing the issues that cause the hunger and sickness in the first case. Sometimes this may be caused by war, dictators, or whatever. Almost never will spending money solve these problems. And most of the time the issues in question can only be solved by the people themselves, not by external charity. Very rarely does a country all of a sudden become unable to support it's population without good reason. Projects like the ISS are just a stepping stones to learning to exist in space and on other inhospitable planets. Learning to manage a fragile environment in space will also teach us to manage the environment we have down here. To not spent some money down on earth is to neglect the present, but if we do not invest in the future then we will not have one.
No doubt International space station will cost a lot of money but I think it is worth it. Look at the enormous experience that astronomers will acquire by staying in space and actually doing experiments in zero gravity.
No matter what we do, we can never replicate such conditions here on Earth.
If we want space travel to be a reality in future, we should have astronomers who have actually lived in space for long intervals.
The ISS will go a long way in producing such people
Guy Matthews, London, UK
Imagine having the same discussion 500 - 600 years ago, in the time when the people like Christopher Columbus went into the unknown. I'm certain you could find then, as well as you can find today, people that will claim that there is no need for such an expensive journey. There are 3 groups of global citizens with 3 different opposing views of space explorations:
Trevor Liberson Aboard the British sailing vessel 'Boon', currently anchored in Trinidad
This planet and its inhabitants need a new focus. Throughout history achievements in all fields, technology, health, science, even warfare have been a by-product of the need to adapt to new environments. With this planet largely conquered and explored to the extreme we should be looking towards new challenges. With the continued exploration of space perhaps we can shift our energies to a more productive goal, and it should be a human and not a machine that represents our hopes.
I'm an Indian expatriate living in Rwanda. In many parts of the world, like here in Africa, people starve and die of various diseases for there is no adequate supply of medicine. This is a very tragic plight of the suffering humanity. It is inhuman to spend $60 billion on the International Space Station Programme. Rich countries need to spend their riches on scientific inventions, space explorations and research, but at what cost? It is not wise to close eyes to the reality of the world. Those 16 nations should start investing money on researches on how to alleviate poverty and make the world a better place to live in.
If we lose sight of the fact that Humans need to explore, regardless of cost and risk, then we may as well all sit at home in front of the TV and never leave the house. As for wars and famine, these will not be solved by quitting exploration. We should explore space forever - the potential gains outweigh all negative aspects - but we should learn to treat this planet with respect first.
Marty Palmer, Holland, Michigan, USA
One day, whether it will be a thousand years, a million years or a billion, the temperature of the Sun will change so much so that life on Earth would no longer be sustainable. So, what should mankind do, except its extinction or migrate? Spending $60 billion in building an orbital space station is the first step to achieving the latter.
I wish people that complain about the small amount the world spends on progressing the human experience would get real and try and do something about the 1,000s of billions spent every year on weapons and killing each other.
Of course we need to feed all the world's people and eliminate poverty and spend more on understanding the man-made global disasters destroying our wonderful planet. I believe we still would not begin to understand how delicate life on Earth is without the insights of the Apollo astronauts. The ISS is just a beginning; we should be looking towards using it as a stepping stone for returning to the moon with space tugs connecting to a trans-lunar transport system and understanding how to support a lunar base.
Malcolm Graham, Fremantle, Australia
There are many reasons not to explore beyond our own planet. Half the population of Earth is starving while half is overeating. Environmental pollution threatens all life regardless of stature or wealth. There are now for the first time over 6 billion people crowded onto four continents. What is being done to solve these universal problems? We spend $60billion on a floating laboratory. This however ignores the most important point: The desire within all of us to explore. Just as Marco Polo broadened our horizons in the east, Columbus broke new frontiers in the west, now we as a collective race, for the first time in history, can claim to be exploring the next great frontier.
Don't lay blame for the failings of mankind at the feet of the ISS. Global poverty could be eradicated tomorrow if we all agreed to change our lifestyles. Look up tonight into the night sky and glimpse the evidence of global co-operation, surely the only way to progress.
The future of humanity lies not on this planet alone.
Not matter how much we try and control birth rates,
the population of this planet will continue to rise.
We need new worlds to colonise. It is not just for
this reason that must continue and accelerate our
manned exploration of space. It is because of the
new technologies that will be developed along the way
and it is because of the those things we cannot yet
know. Human beings need to strive and explore, it's in
our nature. And while machines can do so much, they can
never replace a human being. To those people who
complain about the cost of human space exploration, I say 'How many people die in war each year and how much money does that cost?' It's far more than what we spend on space
exploration.
I don't believe that it is a waste of money. By going to the Moon and trying to get it right in not ruining that planet, we might learn how we can improve how we live on Earth. Money is better spent in our curiosity with the stars than on our curiosity in cloning and genetic manipulation. This is what wastes money in a destructive way.
This planet will definitely go
down with the Sun and the
resources needed to sustain our
growth will become exhausted
long before then. If humankind
is to survive this, then we must
expand. Therefore, part of our
researches must be dedicated
toward the design of off-world
human habitats. To do otherwise
is suicidal on a global scale.
Pete Morgan-Lucas, Wiltshire, UK
There's not that much real estate left down here. Until someone invents Faster-Than-Light travel we'd better learn how to live in micro-g.
The anti-manned spaceflight comments bring to mind the 19th and early twentieth century scientists who believed that there was not going to be anything more discovered, after all they already knew everything. Or the 19th century patent office in America that was proposed to be shut because everything that could be invented had already been invented. It is without doubt essential that we continue into space because there is no way we can know what discoveries are waiting to be made in the vast cosmos, the only real way to make discoveries is the same now as it has always been, for people to actually go. Robots no matter how sophisticated can only work within their programs or limited artificial intelligence but it takes humans to interpret the results.
Dennis Bender, Seffner, FL, USA
Sure it's worthwhile, as long as man doesn't still have the attitude it always did when exploring new territories. Ask the natives of any country if they wanted to be taken over and pushed out and made into second class citizens. If we do that in space then I hope we never get there.
Despite the billions being poured into establishing a space station, it is unlikely in the extreme that humans in any numbers will ever live in space, on the Moon or Mars. The whole proposal is so uneconomic as to be absurd, and the spin-offs of space exploration are nothing that could not have been achieved with a reasonable level of support for science and technology. The money being wasted on the pipedream of a manned mission to Mars, and on the efforts by NASA and others to sell the dream of space colonization could be better spent on dealing with the very real problems of environmental degradation here on Earth.
Manned space travel and future colonisation of other planets is not a waste of money. The space station, however, is. I don't remember why it was built in the first place (other than political and diplomatic reasons). $100b could have gone a long way towards colonising Mars.
Paul Grimshaw, London, UK
Unmanned probes are fine, but inherently limited to the state of the software technology that runs them - and as we have seen from the recent disasters, they are still a long way from infallible. The human brain is still the most powerful computer we know of and it still takes months of training to prepare for a space mission - it will be many years before unmanned probes will reach this level of sophistication. I think that unmanned probes will be essential in the future exploration of space, but will never replace a manned mission.
It is every living creature's responsibility and duty to seek to perpetuate its species and improve upon its existence. Space exploration and colonisation are essential goals for humanity as a whole. We will outlive and outgrow this planet - we must. We will therefore be requiring some new homes!
Space is one of the few remaining "unknowns". If there is one thing that humanity has done throughout the ages, it is to explore. Sure, unmanned craft could do some of the jobs that men/women will perform on the ISS, but what of our never ceasing curiosity? It is impossible to launch ourselves further than the moon from here on Earth. We can use the ISS as our platform to the universe.
Also, we cannot rely on computers to do the work that humans can, with lack of spontaneity, and an eye for the unusual results that could make all the difference.
Jonathan Ellery, Cambridge UK
We should go into space and explore it, settle it, master it ... because, and only because, it is there. If we get anything else out of it, great; but let's satisfy our soul first. It's what we do.
Neil Gall, Edinburgh, Scotland
It is money well spent. It is
a deeply important human
activity.
The starving people of the
Third World are starving
largely due to their own corrupt
governments, not because greedy
America is spending billions on
space research.
Thank goodness the great explorers of the past were not deterred by difficulty and danger, although I suspect expense has always been a problem. No matter how sophisticated robot spacecraft become, they will always be second best to a manned presence because of humans' incredible ability to cope with the unexpected. There will inevitably be casualties and spectacular failures, but there will also always be people willing to take those risks. Our solar system and the wider universe beyond it must hold unimaginable treasures, hopefully including life on other worlds. We have taken our first faltering steps into space. Just like a toddler, after that there's no stopping us. My main regret is that Europe, and particularly the UK, is not investing heavily in manned space exploration. My second regret is that I'm too old to go myself.
Charles in Washington - what's even better is that the ESA with Ariane overtook NASA years ago in terms of commercial launches and profitability!
But, thanks for the cash for the IIS anyway.
The American government would rather spend billions of taxpayers' money on space than provide a Health Service for their own people.
Europe appears to be going down the same path.
It's not the cost of space exploration or all the useful things it can teach us that excites me. I want to find out about these penguins that fall over when aircraft fly over. Now that is a proper use of money.
Mark Thomas, Denver, Colorado, U.S.A.
Space is said to be the 'Last Frontier', What else will we be doing with our existence if we do not send man into space?
Zeina , Beirut, Lebanon
Of course we need to go into space, to colonise other planets. We have almost killed this lovely planet of ours and now we need another goal, another planet to kill! Wherever mankind goes, there is a trail of destruction behind. Let us hope we can get out there and this time not cause too much havoc! They say the price is a bit high at $60 billion - but what price do they put on humanity? We are priceless!
Dr Werner von Braun saw no reason for a man in space. Probes and small experimental packages can do ever so much more at far less cost. The space shuttle is horrifically expensive and does what? We can put up a telescope without it. The space station will eat us alive, and if there is a failure, lives will needlessly be risked. Stop the madness. Use robots and little toasters to explore space. We will learn more at less cost.
How is man different from all other creatures on Earth? One distinction is that we realize our place in the Universe. Understanding the universe, however, is something we have not achieved. Space exploration helps in this regard. The more we know about the universe, the more we know about ourselves.
One day we will get to Mars, that's for sure. But let's just hope we don't make a mess there as well.
Tom Albright, Gonzales, LA, USA
Do we need to travel into space? This is not essential to our present survival. A second, more difficult question would be, could the funds used be put to better use? What other uses? Where and how? There are many human needs calling for funds that are not there.
The integrated circuit, the basis for our computers, was a product of the NASA Space Program. NASA needed to make lighter electronics. They did not have rockets able to place heavy payloads into orbit. Any effort that challenges technology and mankind's ability to survive will certainly add to our knowledge of what and who we are. Space exploration is one such test. That is reason enough to go forward.
Here is the scenario: the shuttle is launched, it goes round and around the Earth and comes home. This has been happening for 20 years, and is getting very repetitive and does not justify the enormous cost involved. Why not take the shuttle around the moon? What happened to the pioneer spirit of Gemini and Apollo? I fear that NASA is becoming conservative with its manned space program, and it is starting to show, space station or no space station.
Surely the next logical step for the advancement of the human race lies not in space but within the colonisation of the oceans of Earth. Nearly 3/4 of the Earth is deemed uninhabitable by virtue of it being a little wet! I realise that the oceans are a fragile ecosystem, but have we not learned enough about the damaging effects humans can have on nature to be able to colonise responsibly under the surface of our seas?
Aaron SchmSchmidt, Canada
I think the ISS is a bad idea. The money would have been better spent on a smaller station. We'd be better off fixing up MIR or building another MIR-like station. Then we could take the money saved and put that into unmanned projects. I seriously doubt that the ISS is going to produce more science than projects like Voyager and Pathfinder.
Better we ask our governments to reduce their arms spending than to cut the amount given to the space programs. If a shift of priorities is required then that is where it should be.
I don't believe for a moment that
manned space travel is a "waste of
money". In fact, I don't believe that
we spend enough money one these
endeavours, given the potential benefits
which can be reaped for medicine and technology.
Human beings have become very insular in
their thinking over the last few years, and somewhat
selfish. Space travel is the perfect antidote to man's
arrogance; it shows us that there is something out
there larger and greater than ourselves. I only wish that
they would send some poets up there too: I'd love to hear
what they would have to say about the experience!
Muthiah Annamalai, Chicago, USA
While there are many places uncrewed craft can go that humans cannot, there are many things that a human on site can discover that a robot cannot. If it is possible to send humans to the
planets, we should do so. It is possible, and the ISS is a necessary
step to take us there.
With respect to cost, how does the cost of the ISS compare with
something as trivial as the Olympics?
Of course it is not a waste of money. Why do people keep saying "There are hungry people, there are wars ¿"? The reality is that unfortunately there will always be hunger and there will always be wars. What should we do? Just wait until the world is in a perfect condition like a paradise and then start the space program? Then we will never get to even think about space. We can explore space a lot faster than we can fix our earthly problems.
|
![]() |
See also:
![]() Internet links:
![]() The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
Other Talking Points:
![]() |
![]() |
![]() Links to other Talking Point stories
|
![]() |
![]() |
^^ Back to top News Front Page | World | UK | UK Politics | Business | Sci/Tech | Health | Education | Entertainment | Talking Point | In Depth | AudioVideo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To BBC Sport>> | To BBC Weather>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © MMIII | News Sources | Privacy |