The Cost Of Space Exploration
Space travel has always been an exciting adventure for people. For centuries people have looked at the stars and wondered what else was out there. Then we started studying it and as technology and human knowledge advanced people started getting more curious. Now in the 21st century people wonder if it is really worth it to fund a mission to space that is hugely expensive, time consuming and difficult to generate public support for. The United States does not have a space exploration program anymore, and for astronauts to get to the International Space Station we have to ride with a host nation, meaning we have to utilize other nations’ (such as Russia’s) space technology. However, these seemingly insurmountable challenges become achievable
…show more content…
You do not have to feed robots or worry as much about losing one like a human. They go to places where people can’t go. You do not have to worry about keeping it full of oxygen and any other life support while wondering the terrain. But robots come with some down sides. The time it takes for a signal to reach it, depending on how far it is could take a while. Adam Mann, in his “Humans vs Robots” article, makes a point about how people can make split second choices on how to react to a situation. Humans are more mobile compared to our latest robot technology. Neil DeGrasse Tyson in his TAM conference makes a good point on how human exploration is crucial to funding. No really cares if a robot discovers something on a different planet. Tyson argues that's how agencies get funding is because people care. Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a conference were gonna be listening reports of the astronauts and not of robots. Congress is not giving money to the exploration program because they see the money being spent else where and that's a product of low interest. And that interest would be rediscovered in “human” exploration. Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the TAM conference also makes the point that NASA was formed based on political concern during the Cold War and people were all for the space travel so we can beat the Soviets. You have to think of it in a sense of supply and demand, people have to demand it for there to be a
You do not have to feed robots or worry as much about losing one like a human. They go to places where people can’t go. You do not have to worry about keeping it full of oxygen and any other life support while wondering the terrain. But robots come with some down sides. The time it takes for a signal to reach it, depending on how far it is could take a while. Adam Mann, in his “Humans vs Robots” article, makes a point about how people can make split second choices on how to react to a situation. Humans are more mobile compared to our latest robot technology. Neil DeGrasse Tyson in his TAM conference makes a good point on how human exploration is crucial to funding. No really cares if a robot discovers something on a different planet. Tyson argues that's how agencies get funding is because people care. Neil DeGrasse Tyson said in a conference were gonna be listening reports of the astronauts and not of robots. Congress is not giving money to the exploration program because they see the money being spent else where and that's a product of low interest. And that interest would be rediscovered in “human” exploration. Neil DeGrasse Tyson at the TAM conference also makes the point that NASA was formed based on political concern during the Cold War and people were all for the space travel so we can beat the Soviets. You have to think of it in a sense of supply and demand, people have to demand it for there to be a