Exploring the outer space has gained momentum over the recent decades, yet some regard them as a wasteful practice and claim that the funding could be channeled into more critical areas to boost living conditions on earth. To a firm degree, I believe this school of thought is rational.
One of the most compelling arguments against space exploration is costs involved. True, operational expenses, pay of the crews, expenditure on equipment and constant maintenance drain the budget of such research, consistently narrowing the investment and requiring more parties to sponsor. Yet space projects have not brought many tangible results since first lunar landings but only few spin-offs: medical devices, enhanced radial tires and modern air conditioning systems.
Another drawback of space research is a high rate of failure. In the pursuit of launching well-equipped spacecraft, many space companies – like SpaceX – have been subject to setbacks due to a natural process of trial and error while building rockets and satellites. Not only does this delay the duration of space projects, but it also generates enormous amounts of disposal, potentially deteriorating ecosystems around.
Therefore, the private and public sectors would reap more benefits if they were to direct the funds to ameliorate pressing issues – cybercrime, corruption, climate change, food and housing shortages, to name a few. As these problems directly affect the lives of everyone on the planet, they bear greater weight and should be prioritized to ensure better living standards, an improvement which also contributes to public content.
In conclusion, although space exploration has led to some merits, they are completely overshadowed by the downsides – heightened resource consumption, long deadlines, and prospective environmental degradation. I, thus, contend that the budget should be allocated to mitigate more serious issues, such as cybercrime, food safety, a lack of housing, climate change and corruption, ultimately elevating public satisfaction.