Shuttle explosion.

l think they have contingency supplies for up to 6mths stored onboard the ISS pompa so they wouldn't starve . It was lucky it was an unmanned mission though.

Do you think Tesco charge much

I couldn't get onto Huffington Post to read what had happened so I'm relieved to hear it was un manned. I saw a brilliant programme on BBC4 the other week about the Russian cosmonauts. Was never interested in the Apollo missions until I saw a play at our local theatre about it. I hadn't realised how involved the astronauts were in the development of the rockets etc; I thought there were engineers and then there were the people who were pilots. How anyone can be brave enough to go into space is beyond me.

It will probably be an unpopular point of view, but I feel there shouldn't be a space programme when there are so many things that need sorting out here.

There are thousands of people dying every day from lack of the very basics of life and I don't understand why such a vast amount of money and expertise isn't put to resolving that problem.

Elothan, I'm sure that your view is far from unpopular, it is shared by many people.

However, I think there is another side to the coin.

Firstly, all the money spent on this type of apparently useless project, "gives work for the working man to do". When governments, companies etc. spend money it keeps money circulating around economies, which is what creates jobs.

Secondly. high tech projects like the space station investigate and drive developments that help all mankind (I think this especially so with the space station as the work being done can only be done in zero gravity.

Another apparently useless waste of money is F1, but how many lives have been saved on our roads by the developments made on the race track.

It is a sad fact that things like wars fuel development faster tahn peace.

Northern Ireland is a good example, the surgical techniques developed following bombings are now used to treat many other injuries far more successfully that before.

Ebola is another example, whilst it may seem that cash to put bodies on the ground is urgently needed, it is the scientists that will be the answer. I don't believe that more money will speed up development, these things do take time regardless of the money and resource thrown at them.

I read an article recently, eloethan, that explained extremely well why having a spce programme benefits the world and mankind. I'll see if I can find it. Its main theme, as I remember, was that the science needed for space flights throws up all kind of useful things for here on Earth, including useful medical discoveries.

The argument for pure science—science for its own sake—has always been strong. We don't know what the search for greater knowledge and ever more amazing technology will turn up until we find it. It does help suffering humanity, just not in ways that are obvious to most people.

Here is an well-argued article by NASA historian, Stephen J Dick. It is not the one I read earlier but it is good. If you google "arguments in favour of space exploration" or similar terms you will find many debates, giving both sides of the argument.

Without space exploration we wouldn't have velcro or non stick frying pans. And then where would we be now if someone hadn't thought of satellites [would the internet exist?]. The one thing that does worry me though is the way that there is an attitiude that we need to find an alternative to earth for the time when we b***r this place up so much that we can no longer exist here .

First of all I there are plenty of jobs that people can do which would be a good deal more useful - and cost-effective - than those arising from a multi-million dollar space programme. Is there any other field of endeavour in which we say that the spending of billions of dollars/pounds can be justified by the employment it provides.

As to the discoveries and inventions that have come out of the space programme, I believe that the huge amount of money and energy that has been spent over the years would have yielded just as many discoveries and inventions if it had been directed to research and development in problems that need resolving on earth.

Naturally a NASA historian whose whole career has been based on astronomy and space science, would consider his life's work to be of great value. The parallel he draws between the pioneering spirit on earth enabling exploration by sea and the opening up of the world may be true but my feeling is that you don't go on to another job until you've finished the one you're already got in hand, especially if it's in dire need of sorting out.

I accept all your points, eloethan, but there is still a bit of me that is glad human beings are an exploring species, a species that wants to understand things like how big the universe is and why it exists and how it works. To me, that is what drives space exploration and I don't feel it's something we should repress just as we shouldn't repress the exploration of pure mathematics or visual art, or music, or creative writing.

Why do people climb mountains? the question goes. And the answer is "because they are there". Why do we explore space? Because it's there.

Sadly human beings have to have a reason for research, very little research is done on a whim. It is either fueled by some dramatic global need - war, disease etc. by competitiveness- the space race, profit or by individual enthusiasm as is the case with Richard Branson.
I am a strong believer in exploration and discovery, the rewards to the human race may not be instant or obvious, but they are there.

In last nights "Human Universe" programme, an interesting fact, that puts what we spend on useful projects into perspective (or maybe that is out of perspective).
"In America 10 times more money is spent on pet grooming than research into alternative energy"

The amount spent on grooming alone in 2012 was 6.2$ billion. The total spend on pets was 52$ billion.

If Americans did without pets, could 52$ billion, help save lives in Africa ?.

We won't change things, but our priorities are a bit jumbled.

Much as I agree with space exploration I can't condone people wanting to go on one of Richard Bransons trip to the moon or wherever they're supposed to go. I mean, we're all told to drive as little as possible, be aware of our carbon footprint etc; one trip on a rocket probaly uses up the carbon footprint of a small nation [Luxembourg or somewhere like that].

Personally cant see there ever being large amounts of people living in space.
Far far too expensive to keep them supplied with their needs.
Plus it is hardly comfortable is it?

Some day, if we have failed to kill ourselves off, as the Sun cools and starts to become a red giant it will engulf the Earth and humanity with it, unless we have found ourselves a new home.
This is estimated to happen in about a billion years, so you had better start planning soon.

I doubt humanity will still exist in five billion years time when the sun dies! Whatever might exist would be very different after such a long time. Probably there could still be bacteria...

Gonna need a lot of face cream for that one Pompa lol.

feetlebaum I don't wish to worry you but you don't have 5 million years, long before the sun dies it will have expanded to engulf the earth and boil the oceans, that is only 1 billion years away !