NASA Should Privatize Space

We don’t know if there is a disease out in pace that could well be fatal. Being on a long trip to Mars could cause degeneration in muscles, bones, and your heart. Astronauts also need a bunch of exercise as well. Without it, he/she is likely to experience heart problems because it would be too weak to return to Earth’s gravity. Lastly, there is a LOT of radiation exposure in space. Gary Marin, director for advanced programs at the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration said, “Being away from the Earth for three years would mean every cell of your body would be transversed by a galactic ray, and we just don't know what that would do to people." All these health risks add up to an astronomical danger. We need to test how our body reacts to long trips in space before we take take the big leap for

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.

In 1957 the first successful being put into outer space was a chimp, named Laika. The early 1960s brought the first man and woman in space, and eventually by the end Armstrong walked on the moon. The 70s brought asteroid belt voyagers, space stations, and the golden record. The 80s and 90s delivered the Hubble Space Telescope, talk of civilizing anything but earth, and in the early 2000s came the idea of privatizing space travel. The debate is, what have we done in the last ten years? Has NASA’s endeavours been to our liking? How should we pay for this exploration, should it be taxes, the government, private endeavours? And what benefit does it give us? There are varying perspectives with varying motivations. Some see NASA space exploration as a not so pressing matter, and so a waste of time and money. Others disagree, and view NASA as an

The impossible was reached on July 20th 1969 when we sent the first man on the moon. The Apollo missions are the largest and most well known explorations that NASA has conducted. Ever since we reached this new high, our curiosity of space has grown even bigger. Funding NASA’s space program even further will continue to help us amplify our available resources and discover new information to benefit humanity. Not only that, but it could provide many ways for us to find a new home and expand our species farther into our solar system, potentially saving future generations. The expansion of this space program would be able to answer more of our questions than from what we can find here on Earth. Although there

This shows the real problems that we face and not enough money is being funded into these problems. In conclusion, it's clear to see that money used for space exploration is something that should be something that would benefit our entire society. You might not think it but space exploration can be very dangerous. First, "Source 3: The Dangers of Space Travel" states that "It has been revealed that the level of radiation that astronauts will be exposed to could raise their chances of cancer" (17). This demonstrates how dangerous space can be already on earth you have chances of cancer, but increasing that chance by a landslide just for the exploration of space.

People sometimes wish they could go out so space through tourism, right? Well, with the privatization of space travel, they could. It would be beneficial to privatize it, although some are against it. This is because of NASA’s current funding outline, economical reasons, and the benefits of space tourism. NASA’s funding outline is not exactly what someone would expect. It is more focused on earth science, to the point where they are just barely hanging onto their space travel plans, and if that was not enough, the U.S. government is planning to direct it even more toward earth science, almost eradicating the space exploration side of the budget. NASA plans to try and “rent” spacecraft from privately owned companies to save money on doing this, and would therefore be able to go on with their plans. There are also reasons due to the economy. If space travel is privatized, it will help the flow of the economy because, for one, it creates missing jobs in the employment sector, helping the economy tremendously. There is also one big thing that was missing when the US paid Russia for seats to go to space. Every one of those dollars is going straight back into the US, making it so, as a country, the US loses no money in the trade. Meanwhile, if they pay Russia, they lose money, which is infinitely worse for the economy than this trade. Lastly, there are some nice benefits to space tourism. Space tourism would make it so that the space business would become cheaper over time, and

Should the United States government spend taxpayer money on the space program? They should and here is why.

In conclusion, the government needs to remain the use of its space program.There are many jobs in the space program. Eventually the basic necessities like food, water, and a place to live will be hard to come by. For the amount of pollution that is on the planet, the population does not have many options when thinking about how will future generations survive. As well as

The world today revolves around technology and is in an ever upward spiraling path of new advancements. This path is now at what some people call the “final frontier”, or the space age. The discoveries being made on this front are overwhelming in comparison to the technology that the world had only twenty years ago. Space exploration was once left up to the governments, as they battled to be the first country in space, but with national debts raising and the cuts made in response, space exploration is beginning to become new grounds for private business owners. Private companies are already beginning to send off rockets at a fraction of the cost that government does, but if more money was put into the government space program, then they

There is a lot out in space? There could be anything really, aliens, asteroids, or giant meteors heading towards the earth. Who should be responsible for taking care of all of that? NASA? Or a private company? Because honestly, A private company just wants the big bucks, not caring of the suffering of mankind. Private companies would like a market, not a future for space travel, and that is a fact. Space travel should not be privatized because space will be used as a market, private companies can create equipment used for unethical purposes, and humans will be delayed in the race in space.

Space is an extraordinary and wondrous place, so why not explore it? The government has stopped funding NASA, because they are paying Russia to send astronauts to the space station for us which they think will be cheaper. There will be no more advancements in space travel or technology. Also, there will be no more exploring space and trying to find other forms of life in the universe. People will lose their jobs because NASA will have to make cuts in order to stay afloat. Funding NASA will provide jobs, create new opportunities for better technology, and also allow us to be able to explore space and its wonders.

When we are in space, the human body changes, a human's lower bodies change since they are not used very much. The leg and lower back muscles lose strength. The heart and blood will also be challenged in space. When we stand, blood goes to our legs. Since we are in space the heart has to work extra hard against gravity to move the

In addition, there are astronauts that have to waste money and gas just to fly up there and back it is going to be bad if something goes

You hit on a key point that I highlighted as well and that is with the safety of commercial flights. You pointed out that on average airlines lose 150 planes a year and no one calls for the halt of all airline traffic. However, with space travel it is the opposite. One

American citizens are not the only ones who will benefit from privatized space programs. The United States government would save tremendous amounts of money as well. Funding cuts have already been placed on NASA, limiting its capabilities for advancing. For instance, American astronauts cannot even reach their space stations alone; they require the assistance of the Russian space program. This is not the iconic space program that the United States deserves. If space travel were to become more prevalent through privately owned companies, NASA would not have to pay other countries to accomplish something as simple as reaching Earth’s orbit. With proper regulations in place, astronauts working for NASA would be able to travel to and from the ISS and other stations within their country. Though NASA can never be replaced, private companies would be capable of greater projects. With more being accomplished without government assistance, cuts could effectively be made without limiting the American success.