Arguments Against Going Back To The Moon

This claim is not necessarily true being that robots cannot get the experience of space like humans can. In Kennedy’s speech gives an example by stating, “An instrument recently developed to record automatically the impact of acceleration upon an astronaut’s eyes will also be of help to small children suffering miserably from eye defects…”. The robots are incapable of experiencing the physical change when leaving Earth and entering space so we are unable to observe these changes when using robots. Secondly, robots do not have the desire to search for more like humans. Robots do not contain the same drive and want to learn the possibilities of space so it is pointless to consider sending them.

Money is a huge problem when it come to going to space. It would cost $230 billion to go to Mars. To put this into perspective, the government makes $4.1 trillion in taxes each year and our country owes China $19 trillion. There is no way that we could do a manned mission to Mars with all that money we owe. We could spend our money on feeding and sheltering the poor as well. This shows that going to Mars is way too expensive and it would be a huge waste of money if anything went wrong. With everything we can do with money on Earth, going to Mars is a huge waste of time and resources.

Some people’s counterarguments saying that it’s pointless and it provides no benefits to us shows that there is a lack of knowledge about space exploration among most people .The ‘Space Race’ i.e. the competition to travel to the moon, was the first political issue that actually became a rivalry between countries. Everybody seems to forget that if we weren’t able to go to space, we wouldn’t have discovered traces of water on other planets such as mars- On the 9th of December 2013; NASA reported that there was once a freshwater lake on the surface of Mars, and there are still traces of water in its atmosphere. This ultimately means that there could possibly be habitable planets in our universe, in our solar system! This could provide a place to go if there in any supernatural disaster, like an earthquake, tsunami or even an asteroid as

Imagine going on a six billion dollar rocket ship and never seeing your family or friends again. The astronauts will risk their lives because it is a dangerous expedition and could easily fail if the people die from lack of oxygen. Colonizing Mars is a terrible idea there is no natural source of water, if Mars One sends them they cannot come back once they arrive there, and someone could get sick and die before they get there.

While colonizing the moon will undoubtedly cost a fortune, contrary to popular belief, we can afford the journey. NASA’s annual funding is around $19 billion USD which is more than enough to kick off a manned mission to the current wasteland. According to MarketWatch’s Jurica Dujmovic: “Reaching the moon would cost about $10 billion” Also mentioning, “with an additional $28 billion to $52 billion” being spent on construction and other mandatory actions in colonizing the Moon. The Moon has resources that can be mined out and help reestablish the economic situation. As stated by cnbc’s Lori Ioannou, “The ability to mine Helium-3 could have a tremendous impact on Earth and the environment”. Helium-3 is an environment friendly clean, fuel that could be used to power nuclear fusion reactors. Although we would have to use the majority of our funding, we will likely gain valuable knowledge, and possibly even go on mining expeditions to regain some money.

I am sure many questions were asked including, how will we do this, do we have the resources, and is there enough time. Interestingly enough, there was actually much debate as to whether it really was a good idea for the US to put such emphasis on sending a man to the moon. Many scientists questioned the decision, and

The concept of space exploration was first introduced to the American public in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy famously stood before congress and vowed that America would put a man on the moon “within the decade.” With hopes of defeating the Soviet Union in the “Space Race” and gaining a leg-up in the Cold War, NASA funding reached its all-time high in 1965-1966 when about four percent of the federal budget was devoted to exploring space. Since then however, funding dedicated to exploring space has nose-dived to about one-half of a percent of the federal budget (Tyson), with plans to cut that figure by an additional $260 million in 2017 (cite NASA funding cuts). Experts in the space-sciences field argue that increased funding in space exploration would re-ignite the American economy and return America to the scientific prominence it was once known for, while, on the other end of the spectrum, naysayers suggest that exploring space is an economic sink-hole that the United States can no longer afford to deposit to given its own earth-bound troubles.

Humans have always been interested in the idea of exploring space. the scientists, astronauts and researchers have spent decades looking for life on other planets. Mars is the most favorable place in the solar system, other than Earth, for human habitation. It is also the closest planet to Earth. Even though some researchers claim that exploring Mars will help us to understand the Earth better, and a manned mission to Mars is better for humanity, opposing sending a manned mission to Mars for these reasons: because the cost of the exportation is not worth the risk involved. this exploration will have a negative effect on Americans. Mars exploration should be halted because of the cost to the economy, the risk to society and the lack

Why should humans colonize Mars? Humans should colonize Mars for their own well being. If humans want their future offsprings to be alive and well throughout the years then they need to find out how to colonize Mars and they need

To begin, it is expensive and that there are risks for going into space. In “ From packing for Space” they say that it is expensive because its 500 billion dollars. This is important because it would be most of our valuable resources going into the fund. In “ Neil De Grasse” it says that it would be very expensive and it has a lot of risks. This is important because we would be putting astronauts in danger and putting money into something dangerous.

Richard, an author for the website GOVTEEN Global Community, wrote an article briefly explaining why we as a nation, should not go to Mars. Some of the key points of his argument against going to Mars stressed that the financial cost would be too high, it would require several new spacecraft and ground habitats, and several new technologies that currently do not exist. He also was concerned about the budget cuts that have already stripped the National Aeronautical Space Administration (NASA) to a shell of what the space program used to be. He also stressed that we are still in an armed conflict that has put a strain on our nation, economically and emotionally.

It was predicted by Bill Kaysing that the likihood of sending a man to the moon and back were low because of the micro meters and radiation that may cause harm a human. Not even two years later, President J. F. Kennedy gave a speech reporting that he will designate the country with plenty of resources to land a person on the moon before the decade was out. Two years shy of a decade later, the Apollo 11 took off to the moon with three people aboard, who were Buzz Aldrin, Neil Armstrong, and Michael Collins. In July of 1969, these were the first people to ever land on the moon and walk on the moon. Many people have taken their own opinion about what actually happened. Persuasive evidence was discovered and the people have doubted that America

Has it ever occurred to you that the moon is alien based and that is why humans haven’t been back to the moon? It is suggested that NASA has known for years that aliens inhabit the moon. The aliens have used the dark side of the moon to establish a base, develop landing areas, create buildings, and towers, in which, they monitor life on earth. NASA claims that they have not been back to the moon because they simple don’t have the funding. How true can that possible be when they have launched the Kepler Telescope and three different rovers to Mars? The reason it is believed that man has not been back to the moon is because it has been suggested that there is alien life on the moon.

This has led to the current situation in which the program has the potential to move forward, but it won't because there are no movers. It's stuck in this liminal space between its genesis and its execution because those with the means of funding it have no practical reason to. Simply put, proper motivation to fund it is nonexistent. While there are compelling reasons to establish a Moon colony, they are not forceful enough to alter those justifications into a viable venture since most of them are relegated to the theoretical realm of potentialities and possibilities rather than practical reasons that provide surety to investors. A plan's success relies on proper execution as much as the solvency of the plan itself. As long as the construction of a Moon base continues to be financially unsound, it won't

     Since the beginning of time there have always been those that have opposed exploration of uncharted lands. This statement holds truth also for the NASA program since the beginning when President John F. Kennedy's vision was to ‘land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.' Instead of all the opposition of NASA and questions such as, “Why should we go to space?” I believe people should ask themselves, “Why shouldn’t we go to space?” Christopher Columbus didn’t have to sail over the Atlantic Ocean and discover America, he could have stayed in Europe but then we may not be living in the United States of America. Christopher Columbus and many others human didn’t stop but continued to explore because they are