The US should not cut back its space program.

In the midst of Americas ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the need to provide a large stimulus package to get the economy back into shape the US is running up a huge budget deficit. In order to shave a bit off this deficit it has been decided to drastically scale back the space program as a luxury that can’t be afforded. But not everything can be given a monetary value.

The US should not cut back its space program.

Yes because... No because...

We will need NASA at some point

The expertise that has accumulated in NASA will be needed. Whether it be to form a new chemical compound or fight of aliens with their own space rock. We need to keep these scientists in the field. To do this, we need to keep their jobs in NASA. But if were not doing any space exploration, their expertise would be going to waste! They have already done the preparatory work. They know how to extract reform and collect. They need to put this into practice and the only way to do this is through space exploration.

This does not have to be through NASA, there are other space agencys around the world where they could go. Moreover many of the areas where they are working could be taken up by other areas of the US government such as the Air Force.

The US should not cut back its space program.

Yes because... No because...

Space exploration brings the young to science

These days there are a lack of students taking subjects like science, especially physics. It is a difficult subject to grasp, but if we invested money into space exploration we could encourage the young to take such subjects. Excited by the new technology of space; excited by the video footage of a launching rocket, excited into studying physics. Upon getting more young people into studying these subjects, when they qualify we will have a greater ability as a nation to create and invest in new technologies for the electrical goods market. By looking at space travel in this way, we can see how space travel can benefit a nation.

The US should not cut back its space program.

Yes because... No because...

No Space Program = Game Over

Cutting the space program can have lots of benefits. More money to help the homeless and feed the starving. You may find it interesting to know that if we cut the space program entirely eventually world hunger will be no more. That's Right! For no space program means when the Earth's surface becomes sterilized and no human being can survive on the planets surface, well, we never left so we are dead. Bing, Bang, DONE! No more starvation! Who would have known the money saved could have gone so far!

The US should not cut back its space program.

Yes because... No because...

the money is being redirected wisely

The problem is Barrack is still saying he is interested in manned Mars mission. Nasa hasn't been to the moon in decades and they haven't rehearsed staying there for long periods of time. We need to experiment with Depots and Stations on the surface. A Mars mission differs from a moon mission because the astronauts will be required to live there for several months. How could we possibly risk the money and more importantly the lives without practicing on a much easier target. The Moon. Buzz was deeply upset over this very fact. The Moon first, Mars second.

The proposals are a lot more sophisticated than just cutting back the spending on space travel. Yes, the project to the moon which costs £63 Billion has been abandoned. But, Barrack is still investing money into the areas where he thinks improvement is needed. He is cutting the money and reinvesting it into more profitable areas. £4 billion extra is being invested into in-orbit re-fuelling. This technology will stay on earth for a while, but it will eventually lead to greater missions away. Rockets would be able to travel deeper into space allowing us to learn more. What Obama is doing is making American money in space travel go further than merely visit moons which we have already visited.

The US should not cut back its space program.

Yes because... No because...

We should promote private companies to take up the task.

Private companies will never work in the same way as NASA does. The research gained and the expertese would be private and so be much more difficult to call upon should they be needed. They will be looking after their own interest not the national interest of the USA.

Currently, the US pays Russia for its rockets and space equipment. This costs America $50million to get astronauts to the space station. This money is being shipped into a different company. It is funding jobs in Russia for production whilst the Russian Government makes the tax on it. If America were to spend $6 million on promoting space technology to private investors, then they could rent the equipment off of them for the purposes of NASA and the money would be reinvested into the American economy.

Elon Musk, an internet entrepreneur and head of SpaceX [[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/7139644/Nasa-forced-to-hire-private-space-taxis-by-White-House.html]] stated that within three years of getting a NASA contract they would be able to provide for these rentals at $20 million. This is a huge saving that the cuts now will help.

Debates > The US should not cut back its space program.