| Solid Snake |
02-19-2006 02:09 AM |
Saying that we have no business going to the moon would be the equivalent of the Queen of Spain (was it Isabella at that time?) telling Christopher Colombus that she wouldn't dare waste her money on his expedition while thousands of people within her country's borders suffered in poor economic conditions.
Mind you, monarchs back then weren't really all that concerned with how the peasants were actually faring, so this would have never actually been an issue. But my point still stands. Nothing is arguably more important than the continuation of a nation's exploration and innovation. We need to continue to strive to make scientific advances and conquer previously unexplored terrain. We need to understand more about how our universe functions.
It's worth noting that the first missions to the moon, though originally justified by the arms race with the Soviet Union, actually had a far more profound affect in...medicine, of all things. As well as nutrition. And biochemistry. And geology. Turns out that when we sent these astronauts into space NASA began collecting all sorts of useful data. I don't remember offhand exactly how NASA's contributed to everyday life, but I can assure you it has. Exploring the unknown always has great risks but often wields great benefits -- because it's only by confronting the unknown that we learn previously unheard of facts about the way our minds, bodies, ecologies, etc happen to work.
We need to start realizing that, though the short-term costs of space exploration would likely be high (albiet certainly far less monetarily than, say, even a tenth of how much America spends yearly on defense), the long-term benefits in all facets of life would be enormous. There's ways we could stop fossil fuel consumption, and one way is to consider fuel sources available outside our atmosphere. I'm not just talking about minerals on other planets. We could even collect constant levels solar energy from outer space and 'beam' it, at least hypothetically speaking, back to the ground. This would be much more cost-efficent than solar power because there's no rain or cloud cover to impede constant access to sunlight.
The biggest irony in my opinion is that many who argue against continued space exploration programs advocate that the money would be better spent improving the lives of people back home. From a long-term perspective however I'd bet that everyone would proportionally benefit more from an active, well-financed and goal-oriented space program. The problem right now is, though we're not spending as much annually on NASA, the taxpayer's money we're investing is largely going to waste to sponsor ventures that aren't well-equipped, managed by enough skilled scientists, etc. Hence why we've had so many recent breakdowns and malfunctions in just about every little gadget NASA decides to send out.
So yes, we should send a man to the moon sometime -- and a man to Mars, too, as well as more rovers and more satellites. The more we learn about the universe we live in, and the more we can manipulate and exploit what's out there to our own advantages, the better off all of us are, as a species.
|
