Space Travel? In this Economy?

By Daniel Park ’29

Recently, the Artemis II, a planned mission by NASA that sent astronauts on a crewed flight around the moon, marked the first human return to lunar orbit in fifty years. This historical milestone, standing as a testament to humanity’s endless capacity for technological innovation and exploration, has captured global attention as space agencies continue to expand human exploration beyond Earth. However, as countries invest billions of dollars into missions aimed at lunar or even Martian exploration, a fundamental question arises: Is space exploration a necessity or merely an indulgence? This debate remains ongoing among notable scientists and philosophers. While space exploration offers undeniable scientific and technological benefits, it ultimately represents an indulgence that diverts resources and attention away from urgent problems on Earth.

Many influential scientists argue that space exploration is a necessary investment in humanity’s long-term future, particularly for survival and knowledge. Throughout his career, Stephen Hawking warned that humanity would face existential risks such as asteroid impacts, climate catastrophe, and nuclear war, suggesting that there may come a time when Earth is no longer able to sustain human life. From this perspective, space exploration functions as a form of “existential insurance” for the human race rather than a luxury. Similarly, Carl Sagan turned to outer space to highlight Earth’s fragility, describing it as a “pale blue dot” in space and arguing that space exploration both deepens understanding of humanity’s place in the universe and reinforces the importance of protecting our only known home. A more modern physicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, furthers this narrative, claiming that the cost of space exploration is often exaggerated and noting that NASA’s budget is relatively small compared to its wide-ranging scientific and technological benefits, including advances in communication, environmental monitoring, and medicine.

However, while these arguments point to the potential value of space exploration, they rely heavily on theoretical futures rather than present realities. The supposedly significant threats alluded to by space advocates remain uncertain and distant, whereas the humanitarian crises the world is currently facing—poverty, warfare, and environmental degradation—are immediate and measurable. Therefore, the justification for prioritising space exploration becomes less convincing when it is evaluated against the urgency of existing global needs.

Furthermore, the prioritization of space exploration raises deeper ethical concerns regarding global inequality and responsibility. While significant and huge financial resources are directed towards ambitious projects such as Artemis II, millions of people, as I write this article, continue to struggle with extreme poverty, food insecurity, and access to basic healthcare. In this context, the allocation of vast public funds toward extraterrestrial exploration appears increasingly difficult to justify. As a result, the issue stretches beyond the economic into the philosophical and moral; it calls on us to decide whose needs are prioritized and whose are deferred.

Moreover, even if one accepts the long-term scientific value of space exploration, it remains uncertain whether such investment produces the most effective form of human progress. Unlike direct interventions for existing problems, the benefits of space exploration are indirect, delayed, and often disconnected from the population most in need. While technological advancement from space research may eventually contribute to broader innovation, it does not guarantee meaningful improvement in the lives of those currently facing hardship.

So, while space exploration through missions such as Artemis II demonstrates remarkable scientific and historical achievement, its value is questionable when compared to urgent global needs on Earth. Although it is argued that space exploration secures humanity’s future and drives innovation, these benefits remain uncertain, whereas issues such as warfare and environmental damage are immediate and inevitable. Therefore, prioritizing space exploration risks placing ambition above necessity. A more reasonable approach should focus first on resolving problems on Earth before committing vast resources and sacrifices to space. For now, it remains more an indulgence than a necessity.