With all the problems the U.S has why do we spend millions to go to space?  I don't get it.?
469521
The US spends only a tiny fraction of the budget on the space program, and the benefits from it are fantastic.  \n\nThe computers we use right now would not be possible without the transistor, and transistors were invented as a result of the space program.  \n\nDo you ever watch satellite TV?  How do you think those satellites got there?\n\nDo you ever watch weather reports?  Weather satellites improve forecasting ability immensely.\n\nEver hear of OnStar, the button in your car you push when you need help?  It uses satellites to find and communicate with you.\n\nGPS, the global positioning system.  \n\nEver use Google maps satellite photo option?\n\nThe Hubble Space Telescope has given us enormous insight into the nature of the universe, and continues to do so.  \n\nWe haven't "found" anything useful in space, we found useful things in the pursuit!  And we made useful things.  It's what we as humans do best, innovate, create, and explore.  And we've only begun to explore the possibilities.  Zero-gravity manufacturing opens up all kinds of potential for making better things, like perfectly spherical ball-bearings that would have a million applications on the ground.\n\nKeep in mind that we spend ONE BILLION DOLLARS EVERY DAY on our military.  And that's just during peacetime.  We only spend a fraction of that on space travel, but the return on the investment is huge.  \n\nBut no, you're not the only one who thinks it's a waste.  Unfortunately, there are lots of people who agree, and are doing their best to hold us back from acheiving even more.
383183
The US stopped for a few reasons:\n-The war in Vietnam.  'nuff said\n-We started to worry about solar radiation.  If one of the moon missions was just one month later than it was the men on the moon would have recieved a leathal dose of radaition.  We did not really want to have corpses on the moon.\n\nThe Soviet Union never landed:\n-Their manned moon rocket never had a successfull lift-off\n-The main guy in thier space program died\n-Political reasons\n\nThe US has not been back:\n-Been focused on low earth manned-missions, and robotic exploration, it tends to be cheaper and safer\n-Space race over, hard to justfy politically.\n-Robotic exploration is improving, hard to justify scientifically.
624641
NASA's entire budget is only 2 Billion--tiny compared to the 8 Trillion dollar national debt. The benefits have been huge--check out the attached links of search for "benefits of space program".
633362
Yes.  But only if the amount of resources we can get continue to increase.  If we can develop robust space industry this will not be a problem.
850788
Is it scary, or ironic?  One third of the US space program is run by aliens!\n\nThe Space Shuttle was built be the lowest bidder!
523318
Pushing towards any frontier or advancement can lead to death.  Statistically, you are far more likely to die riding a bus than on any of NASA's space systems.\n\nThe problem is that everyone expects 100% safety and zero deaths from a risky endeavor like space travel.  If our ancestors had canceled any attempts to make advances because of a few deaths, all of us would still be riding horses or walking.  Ships sunk and people died.  Cars crashed and people died.  Planes failed and people died.  Yet they still pushed on.\n\nThe reason that NASA can't send people into space right now is because of politicians that hop in front of T.V. cameras to decry NASA's failures without mentioning their overwhelming successes.\n\nThe Shuttles have flown 114 missions carrying 703 people into space and we have only lost 14 people. It is a tragedy that they died but they died believing in what they did and were willing to take the risks.\n\nCreating a new space program won't make a difference.  Spaceflight is risky and creating a new program won't make it any less so.
1180333
All we have to do is survive long enough to expand into space. I think if we did that, it would be hard for anything to stamp out all the pockets of humans around. Especially if we could figure out how to not die as individuals.
272490
Structures in space are built the old-fashioned way with cranes, hand tools, portable electric tools, etc.  What you're talking about is so expensive and so far in the future it's only in people's dreams right now, like landing on the moon was a hundred years ago.
307630
its to far away. would take 100 years to get there w/ the current space fleet we have there. now if we had nuke space ships that could go 100X's faster and recycle the air then it could be done in 5 years or so. but food and water would be the problem.
461905
I really hope so there was a lot of things that came from the space program that people have forgotten. They were off shoots of the effort to make it to the moon. Computers, cell phones, medical equipment, very some thing that we use in our kitchen have roots in the space program some were failures that could not be use in the space program but found uses here on earth. We need to continue to have science for the sake of discovery. I think that it was in the 17 century that the government of either England are the US funded a project that had not use at the time. The research lead to the discovery of the electron. With out which you would not be reading this message. With space it will be either we do it our other will. The money that will come from space mission in the next 100 year will be greater than the US debt today.
983163
It's a lot cheaper to explore our planet, and the goal of most exploration was to find something of value, usually funded by royalty.\n\nRoyalty isn't what it used to be, and any government whose people believe that taxes are bad will never be able to sustain the costs of exploration of space. It's an expensive proposition.\n\nOur equivalent of royalty, celebrities, tend to spend their money on themselves or on things they can see the immediate results of. No long-term no-return (emotional, financial or career) causes for them.
42522
In many cases it is important to find an answer to a problem but we are overdoing it. We have gone hog wild on this.\n\nGovm't spending is way out of hand. Our total taxation is over 51% and climbing. \n\nWe need NASA to keep pace with science and world progress. \n\nOur govm't was designed to protect the people not subsidize them which means our welfare programs have gone too far. \n\nThe fruit fly study was for the benefit of the orchardists.
68690
During the 60's, we spent a lot of money to get to the moon ahead of the Soviets. It was more political and less science.\n\nOnce we got there, we confirmed that it was just a giant hunk of rock.\n\nNow, it's more of a "been there, done that" attitude. It's expensive to get there, and there's no real reason to go back. It's like paying money to take a second vacation to the middle of a desert.
300783
When you sit back and look at the big picture, space exploration is a worthy investment.  Indeed, a number of the items we have today were spin offs of the research that went into space related industries.  The Plastics industry alone makes more money in one year than has ever been spent on the space budget.  \n\nAnyways, while we should always tend to our basic needs, we will eventually run low of resources and space on this planet.  Assuming that we don't have a great die-off of our population due to the scarcity of necessary items, we will need to colonize other planets to make room for everyone.  Hence, cities on the moon, mars, maybe terraforming venus may become options in the not so distant future.
19689
I say we spend billions in space.  Here is my reasoning, "Idle hands are the devils playthings", and if we're not doing constructive we're going to do something terribly stupid like blow ourselves off the face of the earth.\nSecondly, the survival of the human race depends on reaching out to space and colonizing other planets.  Whether it can be done or not is another question, but waiting for ourlseves to blow ourselves to kingdom come isn't a option I'm interested in taking.  As for evolving, thats entirely correct, because if we push out to somewhere new we can leave behind the things that we could never get over at home (like trivial matters of me being black or you being white, etc).  Some humans just wont let things go foward, and if thats the case why not leave them behind?  Its what America was about when it started, except there isn't anywhere else to go except up now days.  Otherwise we're just recycling ourselves on this planet, with one government falling so another can rise up which thinks its infallable.  Still, despite all that, we've got to be practical about space travel instead of believing we'll get there in 10 to 20 years.  Just because it wont have for us isn't a reason not to do it either, making others miserable just because your miserable is no way to go through life, even if the people your making miserable are five generations down the line.
313099
Well, it's literally "rocket science."  Gravity is the worst problem, probably.  It takes a huge amount of rocket fuel to get even a small object into space, let alone people and all the things they have to carry with them. (Imagine how exhausting it would be climbing straight up a 50-mile-high cliff.  Now imagine doing it without anything to hold onto!)  So once you get something up there, there's not much fuel left to keep accelerating.  Every little ounce has to be counted and allowed for in order to get a rocket up into orbit.\n\nBesides, in space everything is relative.  Spaceships and probes actually travel quite fast -- thousands of miles an hour -- but the places we're going to are MILLIONS of miles away.  The Cassini probe to Jupiter traveled nearly two billion miles to get there!\n\nFuel is just one of many problems that have to be dealt with in space travel.  In space, there is NOTHING at all.  No food, no water, no electricity, no heat, no air, no gravity.  Compared to space, walking across the Sahara Desert would be a fun hike.\n\nThere are so many things that you might never think of.  For instance, when the very first astronauts went into space, nobody knew what would happen to their eyes.  It was possible that in zero gravity their eyeballs would lose shape, and they would be blind!  Luckily, that didn't happen, but at the time nobody knew for sure.  Because of that and many other dangers, astronauts are very brave people.
272970
First of all, there are indecisive, principled people and close-minded, indecisive people.  \n\nYour error is that you are comparing apples to oranges.\n\nFor example:  If we eliminate space exploration entirely, it would not free up a single cent for the homeless.\n\nEach issue has it's own merits.  You decide which issues you support and, if enough people like you support it, it gets more attention and funding.\n\nYou have to research the issues past what the mainstream media tells you.  They have had a number of front page stories lately that have proven to be entirely false.  Every information system has it's bias, including this one.\n\nKeep in mind that just because the majority supports it, that doesn't make it right.