For all of human history we have looked into the heavens and longed to know and understand more. Now in the 21st century the opportunity to venture into the stars is available, but before mankind takes another leap into the future. It must first take a step back and evaluate the ramifications of space travel and exploration. These include economic, political, and scientific consequences.
In regards to NASA, the United States’ space program, how much money should be allocated for contributions to space exploration? Many would argue that tax payer money should not be spent putting people into space (Source H), for both ethical and financial reasons. In Source D, the National Institutes of Health reveal the amazing impact that they have on American lives. Death rates have dropped, childhood cancer survival rate has increased, terrible diseases have been eradicated, etc. Wouldn’t the money that we spend on space be better suited going into government funded agencies such as these? However, the funding for space exploration barely affects the money for health. Data from Source C reveals that 23 percent of federal money was spent on health and medicare combined in 2006, whereas less than 6percent was spent on space and technology. Clearly health has more than enough funding. Furthermore, in Source A, the author …show more content…
Before ships and crews are sent to colonize other planets, Political leaders must first learn to work together. In Source G, the author, Michael Collins, argues that space turns borders invisible, and that politicians should be sent into space in order to understand this. Collins makes and interesting point about seeing the bigger picture, but once multiple countries begin sending people to Mars, who’s to say that those “invisible borders won’t re-emerge, yet this time on another planet. Political divisions should be considered before any nation tries to settle Mars, or any other
In regards to NASA, the United States’ space program, how much money should be allocated for contributions to space exploration? Many would argue that tax payer money should not be spent putting people into space (Source H), for both ethical and financial reasons. In Source D, the National Institutes of Health reveal the amazing impact that they have on American lives. Death rates have dropped, childhood cancer survival rate has increased, terrible diseases have been eradicated, etc. Wouldn’t the money that we spend on space be better suited going into government funded agencies such as these? However, the funding for space exploration barely affects the money for health. Data from Source C reveals that 23 percent of federal money was spent on health and medicare combined in 2006, whereas less than 6percent was spent on space and technology. Clearly health has more than enough funding. Furthermore, in Source A, the author …show more content…
Before ships and crews are sent to colonize other planets, Political leaders must first learn to work together. In Source G, the author, Michael Collins, argues that space turns borders invisible, and that politicians should be sent into space in order to understand this. Collins makes and interesting point about seeing the bigger picture, but once multiple countries begin sending people to Mars, who’s to say that those “invisible borders won’t re-emerge, yet this time on another planet. Political divisions should be considered before any nation tries to settle Mars, or any other