Credit: NASA
Why should we go into space? What is that justification for spending all that effort and money on getting a few lumps of Moon rock? Aren't there better causes here on Earth?
In a way, the situation was like that in Europe before 1492. People might well have argued that it was a waste of money to send Columbus on a wild goose chase over an almost unimaginable distance. Yet, the discovery of the New World made a profound difference to the old one.
Spreading out into space will have an even greater effect; it will completely change the future of the human race and maybe determine whether we have any future at all.
It won't solve many of our immediate problems on Earth, but it will give us a new perspective on them and cause us to look both outwards and inwards. With luck it could unite us to face a common challenge.
This would be a long-term strategy – and by long term, I mean hundreds or even thousands of years. We could have a base on the Moon within 30 years, reach Mars within 50 years even the moons of the outer planets within 200 years.
By 'reach', I mean with manned space flight. We've already driven rover and landed a probe on Titan, a moon of Saturn, but if one is considering the future of the human race, we have to go there ourselves.
Going into space won't be cheap, certainly, but it will take only a small proportion of world resources. NASA's budget has remained roughly constant in real terms since the time of the Apollo landings, but it has decreased from 0.3 per cent of U.S. GDP in 1970 to 0.12 per cent today.
Even if we were to increase the amount spent on space endeavours internationally by 20 times, to make a serious effort to send people into space, it would only be a small fraction of world GDP.
There will be those who argue that it would be better to spend our money solving the problems of this planet, like climate change and pollution, rather than wasting it on a possibly fruitless search for a new planet. I am not denying the importance of fighting climate change and global warming, but we can do that and still spare a quarter of a per cent of world GDP for space. Isn't our future worth a quarter of percent?
We thought space was worth a big effort in the '60s. In 1962, President Kennedy committed the U.S. to landing a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. This was achieved just in time by the Apollo 11 mission in 1969.
The space race helped to create a fascination with science and led to great advances in technology, including the first large-scale integrated circuits which are the basis of all modern computers.
However, after the last Moon landing in 1972, with no future plans for further manned space flight, public interest in space waned. This went along with a fall in enthusiasm for science in the West because, although it had brought great benefits, it had not solved the social problems that increasingly occupied public attention.
A new manned spaceflight program would do a lot to restore public enthusiasm for space and for science generally.
Robotic missions are much cheaper and may provide more scientific information, but they don't catch the public imagination in the same way, and they don't spread the human race into space, which I argue should be our long-term strategy.
A goal of a base on the Moon by 2020 and of a man landing on Mars by 2025 would reignite a space program and give it a sense of purpose in the same way that President Kennedy's Moon target did in the 1960s.
A new interest in space would also increase the public standing of science generally. The low esteem in which science and scientists are held is having serious consequences. We live in a society that is increasingly governed by science and technology, yet fewer and fewer young people long to go into science.
Let me rephrase that
The above comment was actually in reference to the person who commented *first
Think Twice
Before you judge, you should research the topic. The truth is that he's completely right. Space travel and the search for extraterrestrial life has benefited us all. You used a computer to make those rude comments. Computers are here because someone imagined them. Even if there is no life outside Earth, which there statistically should be (even unintelligent life- even single cell life forms on another planet would be an amazing find), just our passion about human advancement is very important. Think of the things we have dreamed up while searching the universe. We have thought of computers, SATELLITES, space ships, and so much more. Not to mention what we have found!!! Through our explorations we have found that the universe is much larger than we thought. We have located over 200 exoplanets, over 10,000 galexies, and more. We have learned about white dwarfs, planets, stars, worm holes, the string theory, black holes, and super novas. More importantly, through our imaginations and advancements in space, we have learned more about ourselves than ever before. Through the big bang, we theorize about the creation of our universe, and as a result: us. We've learned more about what it takes to sustain life, why we are unique, and how we are here. We have learned more and more about gravity, physics, philosophy, chemistry, religion, and life itself. Don't judge. Ignorance is what holds us back.
Clear as day
He's absolutely right. The vast majority of humanity's energy is spent fighting amongst ourselves. While one could argue that all this infighting has led to (or significantly helped) the dramatic advances of technology, enabling the dreams we have long held for exploring the cosmos, the "enlightened" few now understand how precariously our existence balances. It is not up to any of our Gods to decide on whether we continue to exist or not. Statistically we should have been wiped out long ago. If we spread life between two planets, for example, our chances for continued existence jumps quite dramatically.. even more so if we could inhabit a second solar system. The long term goal (for now) should be spreading life to another galaxy, further boosting out chances of continued existence significantly. For now we do not know if there is any intelligent life out there (as likely as it would seem), so the onus is on us, as so called "intelligent" beings, to ensure the continuation of complex organisms that sprung from this planet billions of years ago. Homo Sapiens are in the current fortunate (or unfortunate) position of what would seem to be (if I may be so arrogant) the pinnacle of evolution, therefore rendering us as the only "spokesperson" for life, leading it not only on this planet, but further into the solar system, the galaxy & finally the universe. We are not doing a good job so far. This is the drive of nature on what seems to be a macro scale.. to perpetuate itself. Why life itself exists like this, its drive and the sheer complexity of it all, is beyond my capable reasoning.. but the point Dr. Hawking makes is as clear as a duck fart on a cold winters eve.