I would like to start by stating that I am no fan of Elon Musk and his Mars colonization ambitions. I think Mars is a poor candidate to direct crewed spaceflight at for the next few decades. However, this does not mean that I condemn all attempts at crewed space exploration. I think a much more realistic goal for near-term space exploration is establishing a permanent human settlement on the Moon. The Moon is a great location for a base precisely because it is so uninhabitable; its low gravity and lack of a significant atmosphere make it a wonderful place to build and launch immense payloads from. Additionally, as a result of Earth’s high gravity and thick atmosphere, it is actually cheaper from an energy standpoint to launch a satellite into a low Earth orbit starting from the Moon than if you launched from Earth. These factors, as well as many others, make the Moon not only a great exploration candidate but also an essential place to industrialize if we ever want to expand into the rest of the solar system in a substantial way.

With that out of the way, I will now explain the issues that I take with this article. The first claim made by the article is that space exploration is both ignorant of and detrimental to the state of our climate. First of all, humanity does not have to concentrate on solving one problem at a time. We can and should devote resources to many sectors of technological development, with climate efforts being an extremely important one of these sectors. Secondly, the development of space has and will continue to provide immense benefits in humanity’s fight against climate change. Weather satellites operated by organizations such as NOAA have provided crucial information both to climate research as well as the general public. Many technologies developed specifically for space exploration have been adapted for everyday use, such as solar panels. Services that we use every day are only possible because of previous development of space. GPS satellites aid with navigation every day, and satellite internet provides coverage of remote areas. Continuing to develop space-based weather satellites will only improve our knowledge of climate change and global trends in temperature. There is, of course, the climate impact of rocket launches. While it is true that certain rockets emit harmful chemicals when they launch, rockets launch so infrequently compared to other forms of transportation that the high emissions cost of each launch is essentially meaningless. There are, in fact, rockets that do not emit very harmful chemicals. Liquid hydrogen rockets, such as the United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket, only produce water vapor from their rocket exhaust.

But all of these benefits do not explicitly require humans to be involved, so why have manned space programs at all? Admittedly, the benefits of human exploration are more far off and less concrete. There are some tangible benefits of having humans in space, however. Medical research on the ISS, for example, has provided us with vital information about long-term radiation exposure on humans, as well as how living beings adapt to zero-gravity environments. While most solar system exploration is and will continue to be performed by robots, any long-term efforts should require humans to be present. There may be situations that arise on a space station or outpost that require human ingenuity and creative thinking. There can be significant signal delays for deep space exploration missions, so having humans be present on the mission would help potential issues be addressed as they happen instead of when the information reaches the control center on Earth. Humans have continuously inhabited space since the construction of the ISS, and ending this presence would be foolish and would lock us out of valuable insights into long-term human inhabitation of space.

The cost of space is another easy-to-criticize aspect of space exploration. Yes, sending stuff into space is very expensive, an inevitable result of us living on a planet with high gravity and a thick atmosphere. The benefits of space infrastructure, as I’ve previously outlined, far outweigh the initial launch costs. Space programs also provide vital jobs for space centers and facilities across the country. For example, the Apollo program, despite its immense costs, returned around 7 dollars for every dollar spent on the program. There are much more wasteful sectors of government spending that should be criticized, mainly the military, but NASA is not one of them. NASA’s budget accounts for less than half of a percent of the federal budget. The unfortunate truth is that canceled NASA funds would likely be funneled back to the military, not to social programs.

A very real problem brought up by the article is that of space debris, but not for the reasons described. The article claims that trash left over by human exploration is a problem for the moon. I take issue with this claim. The problem with trash on Earth is that it can harm life and disrupt ecosystems. The moon, nor any other object in the known universe, does not have any native life to worry about disrupting with trash. We should consider the leftover items from lunar landings as historical artifacts, not as mere trash. Equating these items to discarded Doritos bags is not only ridiculous, but it is also distracting from the very real problem of space debris in Earth’s orbit. Yes, there is a large amount of debris in space from decades of exploration. The danger that this debris poses, however, is not for people on the ground but rather for functional satellites and space stations already in space. That is why we have debris tracking networks that keep track of debris large enough to potentially harm valuable satellites. There are also efforts being taken, both by research institutions and the space industry, to address and mitigate the space debris problem. Space debris will have to be consciously addressed as we proceed in space exploration, but it is not an impassable barrier for further space development unless we ignore it.

There are also the less obvious benefits of space exploration. These programs accelerate interest in STEM topics among people of all ages. Space programs are also key drivers of international collaboration and shining examples of what can be accomplished if countries decide to work together instead of fighting. The obvious example is the ISS, but there were countless other programs, such as the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project, the earlier Mir space station, and the Cassini-Huygens Saturn spacecraft. The current Artemis lunar program includes several international partners, and one of the astronauts scheduled to be launched on the next lunar mission is Canadian.

Speaking of astronauts, another point brought up by the article is that space is very dangerous for humans, so we, therefore, shouldn’t send humans at all. First of all, no one is more aware of the risks involved with space travel than astronauts themselves. Astronauts are professionals who train for years before even being considered for a space mission, no one is forcing them to step into a capsule. Criticism of the Space Shuttle program is certainly valid, it had real issues with safety standards. The Shuttle was an incredibly ambitious vehicle, it had capabilities for crew count and cargo that we cannot meet today with our current vehicles. There are reasons that it no longer flies; it was complex and risky, with some portions of the flight having no option for an abort if it would have been necessary. The spacecraft flown today are very different from the Shuttle. The Russian Soyuz spacecraft has been flying with no serious issues for over 60 years and was used by NASA astronauts to reach the ISS after the Shuttle was retired. The current main US-crewed spacecraft is the SpaceX Crew Dragon, which has had a flawless mission record since its introduction in 2019. These capsules, as well as others being developed by other nations, all include abort systems that could prevent catastrophes such as Challenger. Space is and always will be a dangerous place, but astronaut safety can only be improved if we continue to support advancement in space. The danger of space is itself a reason to go to space. If we wish to have real development in space, we must first tackle the risks associated with space travel.

Space is a topic that has inspired humans for as long as we have existed, and space exploration is a natural extension of this fascination combined with the human desire to explore. To ignore space exploration would be to ignore human nature and shut all of us off from some of the most important technologies ever developed and stifle our knowledge of the universe that we live in.