The debate regarding the feasibility of space explorations and missions has been there since the
inception of this remarkable technological invention while others propose further studies that opposing
it. Those who propose it cite its contribution to creating opportunities, opening exploration paths for
other fields discovery such as medicine, and mining, among others. On the contrary, opponents are
majorly concerned with the money spent on these projects, their environmental concerns, other
deemed side effects. This essay focuses particularly on opponents' stands regarding the feasibility of
investing in space exploration missions.
First, opponents argue that investing in space exploration is a gamble of huge resource investment with
no guarantee of returns. Space exploration missions require millions of money resources starting from
crafting the infrastructure, and paying involved workforce, as well as spending as the designated
research areas. Some exploration missions usually succeed. In contrast, others fail thus coasting the
country huge loses of money with no returns. Opponents thus suggests that channeling this sizable
number of resources to pressing global issues such as mitigating the negative effects of climate change,
ending hunger and starvation, and researching cures for global chronic diseases would be much more
feasible than investing in projects whose success is not guaranteed.
Secondly, opponents cite that investing into space exploration is inviting climate change problems to the
atmosphere. The increased launches of space ships result in huge emissions of toxic substances and
carbon into the air, rendering it unfit for human respiration. These gases and toxic substances emitted
into the air cause acidic rain and other chronic ailments. Therefore, opponents say that there is no need
to invest money in projects that harm ecosystems and humans and animal health. The invested money
on space missions thus needs to be rechanneled towards solving issues humans and the overall
ecosystem face instead of creating room to thrive other problems.
Lastly, argue that most space exploration projects consume a lot of money to prove necessary points. For
instance, they say that it is not logical to invest billions of dollars in projects that prove the earth is a
sphere, the earth's revolution and rotation, the earth's origin, and searching for extraterrestrial life.
Critics argue that even though pursuant of such knowledge is good, it should not be prioritized over
solving human and ecological existential challenges that are faced by the earth. Competing to prove a
point in space research studies has led to the sidelining of humans’ beings' pressing issues, hence
leading to poor health and living conditions. Therefore, governments need to rethink their actions and
decision of exploring space.
In conclusion, space exploration missions undeniably contribute to scientific knowledge and
technological advancements. However, funding these advancements and knowledge seeking missions
are not feasible due to their economic feasibility, ecological problems they bring about, and the direct
effect they have on humans' lives. Instead of investing such huge amounts of billions in space
exploration, government agencies and private entities should channel the funds towards solving global
pressing issues such as hunger, diseases, illiteracy, among others.
2
The debate regarding the feasibility of space exploration and missions has been there since the inception
of this remarkable technological invention. Some people propose further studies on space explorations
to dig deeper into answers that have not yet been found. In contrast, others criticize such investment,
citing that it is not feasible, economical, and thus a waste of resources. Those who propose it cite its
contribution to the economy as it is one way of job creation, opens up the path for discoveries in other
fields such as medicine and technology, among others, and has helped get answers that humans initially
were unaware of. On the contrary, opponents are concerned with the money spent on these projects,
environmental concerns, and other deemed side effects caused by space exploration projects.
First, opponents argue that investing in space exploration is a gamble of a huge amount of money into an
investment whose returns are not guaranteed. Space explorations usually require billions of dollars to
cater to crafting the environmental infrastructure, pay the workforce, and spend on all other necessary
expenditures as planned. While a number of missions succeed, some terribly fail, leaving behind huge
losses. These failures prompt opponents' argument that the money spent on these projects should be
channeled towards solving global pressing issues such as hunger, climate change, and diseases, which
would be much more feasible than investing in space exploration projects whose success is not
guaranteed.
Secondly, critics argue that investing in space explorations is inviting environmental degradation activities
knowingly. Space activities degrade the atmosphere by polluting the air with toxic substances such as
carbon. The increased launches of spaceships result in huge emissions of toxic substances and carbon
into the air, unfit for human, animal, and plant respiration. Toxic substances are major agents and causes
of chronic diseases that have taken ages without finding a cure such as cancer. Therefore, critics believe
there is no need to invest money in projects that harm ecosystems and human and animal health. They
therefore feel that the invested money on space explorations needs to be rechnneled towards solving
issues humans and the overall ecosystem face instead of creating room to thrive other problems.
Lastly, critics argue that most space exploration projects consume a lot of money to prove necessary
points. For instance, they say that it is not logical to invest billions of dollars in projects proving the Earth
is spherical, its revolution and rotation, its origin, and searching for extraterrestrial life. While critics
agree that pursuing such knowledge is okay, they propose that such projects should not be given
precedence and priority to solving problems that face us as humans. Competing to prove a point in
space research studies has led to the sidelining of humans' pressing issues, leading to poor health and
living conditions. Therefore, governments need to rethink their actions and decisions to explore space.
In conclusion, space exploration missions undeniably contribute to scientific knowledge and
technological advancements. However, funding these advancements and knowledge-seeking missions in
space is not feasible due to their economic feasibility, the ecological problems they bring about, and
their direct effect on human lives. Instead of investing huge funds towards space exploration,
government agencies, and private entities should channel the funds towards solving global pressing
issues such as hunger, diseases, and illiteracy.
