Since the 1960s, there has been some heated discussion on the feasibility of space research. Some people, free lancers or columnists in particular, always emphasize that it involves the bulk of investment that never expects financial reward. However, through years of practice and observation, this statement turns out to have a number of restrictions.
Admittedly, the idea held by the people who lament over the annual budget in a package of space projects does contain an element of truth. But these arguers tend to ignore two other essential aspects. First, they fail to take into consideration the possibility that a country can utilize its cutting-edge technology in the moon landing projects, thus profiting significantly from satellite development, data transmission or rocket lift-off. In this sense, space investment is not always synonymous to a waste of money. Second, the arguers’ assertion doesn’t provide sufficient data to narrow down the exact extent of the financial loss. Therefore, any further conclusion addressing the problem of space research must be based on thorough investigation. As a matter of fact, space research and exploration provides the primary incentive for the development of space shuttles, space stations and sky labs, let alone other benefits from the discovery of rare material to the observation of new heavenly orbs. In this respect, money return is not the sole hallmark of the space research. Given reasons above, the argument above, under scrutiny, tend to be groundless in its hasty conclusion.
In conclusion, the arguers’ evidence lends little credible support to her claim. To persuade people that space research is a waste of money, the arguers would need to provide clear evidence, sufficient data and thorough cost-benefit analysis of alternatives.(280 words)
