The money spent by governments on space programmes would be better spent on vital public services such as schools and hospitals.
It is sometimes argued that governments have distributed a huge amount of finance on space explosion programmes. From my point of view, I entirely advocate expending this money on crucial public services.
There are several reasons why the space programmes should be dropped. The initial reason is that these projects could come at an enormous cost to governments because they have to possess high-expense equipment and spend funds on training scientists and staff involved. Secondly, normal individuals could not acquire any value or benefits from space research and these programmes instead of politicians who are inclined to strengthen their power by rewarding achievements of space. Finally, carrying out space programmes is capable of bringing a wide range of risks, which likely even make them cost their lives pointlessly. The Challenger space shuttle proved that space travel and research is dangerous and it is not worthy to be spent a huge amount of money on.
I do believe that the money should be allocated to public services owing to their advantages. Firstly, it is obvious that the cost for equipment and training doctors, teachers or other public servants is much cheaper compared with that of space projects. Furthermore, these significant services are of use for almost residents in society. For example, infrastructures including hospitals, road, building or schools have positive effect on human's daily lives and everyone is always in need of security of police. Thus, if governments reallocate the funds to vital public services, it is indisputable that the poor manage to be lifted out of poverty and the life standard is facilitated considerably.
In conclusion, I am supportive of spending money on basis public services to make an improvement for society instead of vanity space projects.
To what extent do you agree or disagree?
It is sometimes argued that governments have distributed a huge amount of finance on space explosion programmes. From my point of view, I entirely advocate expending this money on crucial public services.
There are several reasons why the space programmes should be dropped. The initial reason is that these projects could come at an enormous cost to governments because they have to possess high-expense equipment and spend funds on training scientists and staff involved. Secondly, normal individuals could not acquire any value or benefits from space research and these programmes instead of politicians who are inclined to strengthen their power by rewarding achievements of space. Finally, carrying out space programmes is capable of bringing a wide range of risks, which likely even make them cost their lives pointlessly. The Challenger space shuttle proved that space travel and research is dangerous and it is not worthy to be spent a huge amount of money on.
I do believe that the money should be allocated to public services owing to their advantages. Firstly, it is obvious that the cost for equipment and training doctors, teachers or other public servants is much cheaper compared with that of space projects. Furthermore, these significant services are of use for almost residents in society. For example, infrastructures including hospitals, road, building or schools have positive effect on human's daily lives and everyone is always in need of security of police. Thus, if governments reallocate the funds to vital public services, it is indisputable that the poor manage to be lifted out of poverty and the life standard is facilitated considerably.
In conclusion, I am supportive of spending money on basis public services to make an improvement for society instead of vanity space projects.
