why is space travel unnecessary

You are using an outdated browser. Upgrade your browser today or install Google Chrome Frame to better experience this site.

Space exploration pros and cons: Are space programs a waste of money?

Source: Image : ESA/Rosetta/MPS for OSIRIS Team MPS/UPD/LAM/IAA/SSO/INTA/UPM/DASP/IDA  

Space exploration is a hugely expensive affair. Should we spend money on space exploration when we have so many problems on planet Earth? We debate the pros and cons of space exploration and the reasons for investing in space agencies and programs. 

Should we spend money on space exploration?

The launch of SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket into has brought back media attention to space exploration . Elton Musk's private aerospace company is in the process of becoming a major player and a partner for many space programs. However, most of the efforts to discover whats out still depend mostly on public funding. 

Space exploration is costly, and many argue that in times of belt-tightening, we should focus on solving problems here on Earth, especially since the knowledge gained from space exploration has few immediate benefits. On the other hand, pronponents of space exploration argue that the knowledge to be gained is invaluable, and that it is in the very nature of humankind to explore. In addition, proponents of these programs argue that they have had significant benefits and resulted in the discovery or popularisation of many useful new technologies . Furthermore, space exploration could be the only way to escape  human extinction in case living conditions become unsustainable on Earth.

Today there are six big government space agencies with the capacity to create, launch and recover satellites: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration ( NASA ), Russian Federal Space Agency ( Roscosmos or RFSA),the China National Space Administration ( CNSA ), the Indian Space Research Organisation ( ISRO ),  the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency ( JAXA ) and the European Space Agency ( ESA ) which integrates several European space agencies. Among them only NASA, ROSCOSMOS and CNSA have full capacity for human spaceflights and lunar soft-landing.  In addtition to these there are many other government space agencies with variable capabilities, most of them have only the capacity to operate satellites, a few of them also have launch capabilities and can operate extraterrestrial probes. Some of these space agencies are competing to be the first to send humans to Mars  and investigating if there is intelligent life on other planets .

These space programs and agencies are very costly. It is estimated that the total annual budget of space agencies is $41.8 billion. Among them the highest budgets correspond to:

• NASA (USA, $19.3 billion)
• Roscosmos (Russia, $5.6 billion) 
• ESA (Europe, $5.5 billion)
• CNES (France, $2.5 billion)
• JAXA (Japan, $2.5 billion)
• DLR (Germany, $2 billion)
• ASI (Italy, $1.8 billion)
• CNSA (China, $1.8 billion)
• ISRO (India, $1.2 billion)

Are all these costs justfified? Are there better ways to spend public funding? Should we mainly rely on private investors such as Elton Musk to promote space expliration? Will capitalistic incentives lead the way towards space exploration? In order to help make up your mind we outline next the most important benefits and problems of space exploration.

Space exploration pros and cons

• Knowledge generation.  Thanks to space exploration programs we are discovering many things that help us understand the universe. For instance, learning about planets, comets, stars, etc. can help us find solutions for some of the problems our civilization will face, such as overopulation  and the need to colonize other planets.
• Exploration and discovery are beneficial. Humans have always engaged in exploration to satisfy their sense of curiosity and look for opportunities. During the Age of Discoveries in the 15th and 16th centuries, countries such as Spain and Portugal heavily invested in expeditions, but thanks to them they became super-powers and gained many riches. Later, during the second age of explorations in the 18th and 19th century, the discoveries of pioneers such as Captain Cook or Livingstone heavily contributed to scientific discovery.
• Artificial satellites are crucial tools in modern society. For instance they are used for defence purposes and to fight against terrorism. Satellites help us also monitor the effects of global warming  and detect wildfires. Space agencies are necessary to operate satellites.
• Scientific advancement and by-products. Space exploration programs help introduce and test new technologies. Much of the research carried out to find solutions for space travel have applications elsewhere. For instance NASA research has contributed to develop velcro, fire-resistant materials, medical devices to relieve muscle and joint pain, new precise thermometers, artificial limbs, new air conditioning systems, land mine removal systems, improved radial tires, etc. 
• Space race may save humanity. Life on Earth may be threatened by climate change, pollution, depletion of resources, infectious diseases or nuclear war. Further, space exploration is necessary to find another planet on which humans could pursue their lives. Space programs help also find solutions to adapt human lives to the space or other planets.
• Space industry jobs. The space industry employs directly about 120,000 people in the OECD countries and 250,000 in Russia.
• Few direct benefits to space exploration . True, space technology has helped us launch satellites and introduce many useful products, but do we need to keep pushing forward? The direct intellectual gains from learning about far away planets or satellites such as the moon can hardly compensate the costs. Historical exploration on Earth allowed collect and trade resources. Bringing resources to Earth is not possible with the current technology.
• Space travel is hazardous.  Many lives have been lost in space expeditions. Space missions are very dangerous and can often cost lives and stress to the families of the astronauts or cosmonauts. Should highly qualified professionals and scientists risk their lives traveling outside Earth? 
• Failure is common. Many of the space exploration fail. Probes and satellites crash, exploration robots are lost, rockets blow up in the air, etc. It is frustrating to see how so much money and time are wasted in unsuccessful missions.
• Danger of establishing contact with alien life. One of the main goals of space exploration is to find out if there is life outside Earth. However, establishing contact with other civilizations can be extremely dangerous and could jeopardize human life. If we flag our existence to technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilizations, we may be somehow exposing ourselves to their attacks and invasion. The wanna-be colonizers could be colonized. Primitive life-forms such as virus and bacteria could also provoke epidemic diseases.
• New source of international tensions. The space race is not over. There is a growing international competition to be the first in fulfilling some challenges in space exploration. Sovereignty over other planets and satellites, and over their resources, will become a controversial issue. With the advancement of technology domination of the outer space may tip the balance of power on a bipolar or multipolar Earth.
• Priorities and opportunity costs.  Even if there are benefits to space exploration, spending so much money and effort in reaching other planets is highly questionable. That money and brain power could be used to solve other more important problems for us. For instance governments could invest much more to prevent global warming, reduce crime rates and find a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's Disease.

Vote to see result and collect 1 XP. Your vote is anonymous. If you change your mind, you can change your vote simply by clicking on another option.

Voting results

New to netivist?

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free. You will not receive any promotional materials from third parties.

Or sign in with your favourite Social Network:

Join the debate

In order to join the debate you must be logged in.

Already have an account on netivist? Just login . New to netivist? Create your account for free .

 Report Abuse and Offensive language

Was there any kind of offensive or inappropriate language used in this comment.

If you feel this user's conduct is unappropriate, please report this comment and our moderaters will review its content and deal with this matter as soon as possible.

NOTE: Your account might be penalized should we not find any wrongdoing by this user. Only use this feature if you are certain this user has infringed netivist's Terms of Service .

Our moderators will now review this comment and act accordingly. If it contains abusive or inappropriate language its author will be penalized.

Posting Comment

Your comment is being posted. This might take a few seconds, please wait.

Error Posting Comment

  error.

We are having trouble saving your comment. Please try again .

Most Voted Debates

Start a Debate

Would you like to create a debate and share it with the netivist community? We will help you do it!

Found a technical issue?

Are you experiencing any technical problem with netivist? Please let us know!

Help netivist

Help netivist continue running free!

Please consider making a small donation today. This will allow us to keep netivist alive and available to a wide audience and to keep on introducing new debates and features to improve your experience.

• What is netivist?
• Entertainment
• Top Debates
• Top Campaigns
• Provide Feedback

Follow us on social media:

 Share by Email

There was an error...

Email successfully sent to:

Join with confidence, netivist is completely advertisement free You will not recive any promotional materials from third parties

 Join netivist

Already have a netivist account?

If you already created your netivist account, please log in using the button below.

If you are new to netivist, please create your account for free and start collecting your netivist points!

You just leveled up!

Congrats you just reached a new level on Netivist. Keep up the good work.

Together we can make a difference

Follow us and don't miss out on the latest debates!

• Presidential Search
• Editor's Pick

Former Defense Department General Counsel Appointed Harvard’s Top Lawyer

Democracy Center Protesters Stage ‘Emergency Rally’ with Pro-Palestine Activists Amid Occupation

Harvard Violated Contract With HGSU in Excluding Some Grad Students, Arbitrator Rules

House Committee on China to Probe Harvard’s Handling of Anti-CCP Protest at HKS

Harvard Republican Club Endorses Donald Trump in 2024 Presidential Election

The Illogical Case for Space

Over the past few months, I’ve written a half-dozen columns examining the ethics and rationale behind a variety of space initiatives. But there’s one central question that I have yet to tackle: Why should we care about space exploration in the first place?

Some space enthusiasts choose to ignore this question altogether. If you ask them why you ought to care about space, they might look at you like you’re crazy — “Well, why wouldn’t you? Are you, like, against science or something?” But when billions of taxpayer dollars are going into space-related research every year, and the benefit to the public is not always evident, the “why” question needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately, the common arguments in favor of space exploration have glaring holes in their logic.

Take a hypothetical space enthusiast. He might begin his defense of space spending by citing all the useful technologies that have been created as a result of space exploration. This point is indisputable — the list of technologies that NASA has produced or refined is extensive , ranging from portable laptops to baby formula. But if our primary desire is the production of useful consumer technologies, a space agency doesn’t seem like the most intuitive place to invest. Plenty of other industries could produce similar technologies if given NASA’s multi-billion dollar budget, and they likely could do so more efficiently, given that the development of these technologies is only one small part of NASA’s overall mission.

The space geek might then point out that going after NASA for financial reasons is misguided. After all, NASA’s funding only makes up 0.5 percent of the total U.S. budget; if you really wanted to save money, you’d best look elsewhere. But this is where we wade into politically divisive waters — what exactly can we scale back instead of NASA? If you said (as I’m inclined to) that the military is the most deserving of a budget cut, you’d immediately lose the attention of many conservative listeners. A call to slash social spending would be dismissed by the progressive bloc. It would be nigh-impossible to find any element of the U.S. budget that could be slashed with bipartisan support — that is, perhaps, besides NASA itself.

At this point, the space fanatic might pull out one last desperate card: Space research is necessary in order to protect the human race. If we never branch out to other planets, then we’re all sitting ducks waiting to be wiped out by the next extinction event. And, indeed, this might be true in the long term. But in the short term, we don’t have the capability to transport humans to another planet en masse, and making a distant planet fully habitable is certainly out of reach. So, for now, it’s more important to keep Earth safe than to start colonizing another planet; fighting existential threats like climate change is actually feasible, and climate research could certainly benefit from an annual budget of $22.6 billion.

So, it seems, our space enthusiast has failed to provide a convincing defense of space spending.

Now for the dramatic twist — that hypothetical space advocate was actually me, about two days ago, when I sat down to write this final column. At first, I wanted to write a traditional defense of space spending, but I quickly realized that every argument I constructed or encountered online had major holes in its logic. As a result, I was forced to ask myself: Does my deeply-held passion for space exploration actually have no logical basis?

And, I realized, the answer is yes. The very act of exploring space — launching humans on giant hunks of metal to go wander around distant space rocks — is a deeply illogical undertaking. Still, millions of humans across the globe are inspired by daring space missions, even if those missions offer no tangible benefit to their own lives.

To me, this is because space research — from the search for extraterrestrial life to figuring out how to get humans to Mars — is more of a spiritual pursuit than a pragmatic one. It excites and fascinates us; it satisfies our collective desire to learn more about the unknown — to go where we’ve never been before. Space allows us to explore our deepest questions about the nature of our role in the universe.

Asking why we should fund space exploration is like asking why we should fund art. Arguments rooted in pragmatism miss the point — that space exploration is for the heart and soul.

That said, not everyone will get the same fulfillment from space, like not everyone finds value in the same work of art. So, it’s important that we space advocates be flexible in order to keep our dream alive.

When pragmatists point out that the money currently going towards space seems excessive, we should say, “You know, you might be right,” and look for alternatives — like an emphasis on less-expensive unmanned space exploration or partnerships between NASA and private companies. When they tell us that some space initiatives — like terraforming — are unrealistic, we should abandon those goals. And when they ask what tangible benefits can be reaped from outer space, we should point out the potential opportunities to turn a profit — like asteroid mining .

These are all ideas that I’ve explored in this column. I’m obviously one of the people who finds great spiritual fulfillment through our exploration of space, but I completely understand that not everyone feels the same way. I urge my fellow space enthusiasts to recognize that our passion is not shared by everyone; in response, we should always be looking for cheaper and more efficient ways to carry out the big goals that we would love to see accomplished.

If we want to take the next giant leaps, we mustn’t step on too many toes.

Daniel L. Leonard ’21, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a joint History of Science and Philosophy concentrator in Winthrop House.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

The Cost And Dangers Of Space Exploration: Is It Worth The Risk?

Space exploration has been considered by some as a form of escaping from the gravity of the Earth that needs a significant deal of work and large amount. As compared to the surface of the sea, space is certainly more hostile to the human life. While the boats were the most advanced technolog back then, the space voyagers planned carefully the dangerous and expensive trips, which a lot of them have died while trying to figure out what lies beneath the horizon.

Yet despite the risks, space exploration continues as technology improves over the years, from the small materials of convenience up to the discoveries that are enough to feed a multitude of hungry people or prevent accidents or even save the lives of the injured or the sick.

For some people, it is more practical to work together behind a program that will not involve the possibility of anyone dying. One that would only involve a better understanding of humans' home planet, including the ways on how to survive on it as well as finding out the things that are important in continuing to survive, according to  Science Mash .

However, space exploration that could go further into the solar system may indeed be a good plan, that is, if humanity would be fortunate to survive 5.5 billion years more and if the sun will expand enough to kill harm the Earth.

These are just among the many reasons why space exploration has become necessary as humanity finds ways or alternatives, building space stations and civilizations on Mars, bases on the Moon as well as the habitats on Jupiter moon. And if technology could manage to bring success in these, then there is a likelihood of going beyond the sun in the future.

Space exploration may be considered too dangerous and huge enough to become a possible project, but these have never prevented humans from trying some luck out there, Wired reported.

See Now: NASA's Juno Spacecraft's Rendezvous With Jupiter's Mammoth Cyclone

Tags Space Exploration , space exploration dangers , space exploration cost , space exploration timeline , space exploration meaning , space exploration news , space exploration update

Related Articles

Space Plans Mean More Junk, Difficult Space Exploration

Join the Conversation

More on SCIENCEWR

Understanding and Limiting Cross-Reactivity in ELISA Testing

6 Ways to Stamp Out Employee Burnout

Ferrari Energy Describes How the Oil and Gas Industries are Refueling Reinvention

The Effects Of Coronavirus On Sleep: How To Get A Good Night's Rest

The Relationship Between Sleep Deprivation And Work Performance

The Biggest Data Breaches in 2021 and How You can Protect your Company’s Data

Color Contact Lenses - Get new eye color contact lenses and look beautiful

Watch Out for These Red Flags When Picking a VPN as an Expat

Life Changing: Benefits Of Having Whiter Teeth

4 Features You Need in a Medical Translation Agency

What Role Does AI Play in Healthcare?

Lasers That Learn: Embracing The Digital Age

Smart Circle Jobs: Defining the Employee Landscape of a Marketing Powerhouse

First Steps After Dementia Diagnosis

The Year in Review: Five Incredible innovations that Rocked the World in 2021

5 Breakthrough Technologies

Russian Arctic Researchers Say: Norilsk Fish Safe to Eat

Can You Purchase an Auto Extended Warranty For a Subaru?

RegMedNet Explains How CAR-T Therapy Can Engineer Patients’ Immune Cells to Treat Their Cancers

How To Promote Mental Health in the Workplace

NASA scientists consider the health risks of space travel

Humans aren't built to live in space, and being there can pose serious health risks . For space administrations like NASA , a major goal is to identify these risks to hopefully help lessen them. 

That was a major theme during NASA’s Spaceflight for Everybody Virtual Symposium in November, a virtual symposium dedicated to discussing current knowledge and research efforts around the impact of spaceflight on human health. During a panel discussion titled “Human Health Risks in the Development of Future Programs” on Nov. 9, NASA scientists discussed these risks and how they are using existing knowledge to plan future missions. 

Each panelist emphasized that the health risks presented by space travel are complex and multifaceted and that all types of risks should be considered closely when planning future missions. 

Related:  Space travel can seriously change your brain  

Five types of risk

When discussing the risks presented by living in space and space travel, there are five main types, the scientists outlined in the presentation. 

Two types of risk, radiation and altered gravity, come simply from being in space, they said. Research has shown that both can have major negative effects on the body, and even the brain . Others, like isolation and confinement as well as being in a hostile closed environment, encompass risks posed by the living situations that are necessary in space, including risks to both mental and physical health. 

Then, there are the risks presented simply by being a long way from Earth. The farther humans get from the Earth, the riskier living in space becomes in almost every way. 

Get the Space.com Newsletter

Breaking space news, the latest updates on rocket launches, skywatching events and more!

Everything from fresh food to unexpired medication will be extremely difficult to make accessible with longer journeys farther away. On the International Space Station, astronauts aren’t too far from us, and we can routinely send supplies to the crews in orbit. But a mission to the moon or Mars would pose more problems. 

Communication delays would increase, and there would likely be communication blackouts, said Sharmi Watkins, assistant director for exploration in NASA’s Human Health and Performance Directorate who served as a panelist for this discussion.   She said it would also take longer to get back to Earth if there was a medical emergency. 

"We're not going to measure it in hours, but rather in days, in the case of the moon, and potentially weeks or months, when we start to think about Mars," said Watkins.

Steve Platts, the chief scientist in NASA’s human research program, broke down different levels of risk in space and discussed how NASA uses a "phased approach" when it comes to research on human health. In this approach, initial "phases" include research on the health effects of being in space has also been done in simulated conditions on Earth, from isolation experiments in Antarctica to radiation exposure at Brookhaven National Laboratory in Long Island, New York. Likewise, experiments on the space station will help us to prepare for risk on the moon and Mars — these later phases build on knowledge gained from simulations. 

"We do work on Earth, we do work on low earth orbit and then we'll be doing lunar missions, all to help us get to Mars," Platts said. 

— Deep-space radiation could cause have big impacts on the brain, mouse experiment shows

— Without gravity, the fluid around an astronaut's brain moves in weird ways

— Long space missions can change astronaut brain structure and function

Still, no matter how much we may prepare on Earth, every space mission comes with risk, so NASA has set health standards to minimize this risk for astronauts. 

NASA has over 800 health standards that they’ve developed based on current research. These standards describe everything from how much space astronauts should have in a spacecraft to how much muscle and bone loss an astronaut can experience without being seriously harmed. These standards also include levels of physical fitness and health the astronauts need to meet before going into space. All of NASA’s health standards for astronauts are available online . 

A mission can impact astronauts’ health, but it also works the other way — health troubles with astronauts could impact a mission if they aren’t able to perform mission tasks adequately, said Mary Van Baalen, acting director of human system risk management at NASA and the panel’s moderator. She emphasized the complex interplay between these two types of impacts, both of which NASA scientists must keep in mind when planning missions. 

"Space travel is an inherently risky endeavor," she said. "And the nature of human risk is complex."

You can watch the full recording of the panel discussion and other talks from the symposium here . 

Follow us on Twitter @Spacedotcom or Facebook.

Join our Space Forums  to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at:  [email protected].

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: [email protected].

Rebecca Sohn is a freelance science writer. She writes about a variety of science, health and environmental topics, and is particularly interested in how science impacts people's lives. She has been an intern at CalMatters and STAT, as well as a science fellow at Mashable. Rebecca, a native of the Boston area, studied English literature and minored in music at Skidmore College in Upstate New York and later studied science journalism at New York University. 

Next Blue Origin space tourism flight will launch youngest woman above the Kármán line

Watch China test-fire engine for new crewed moon rocket (video)

Runaway 'failed star' races through the cosmos at 1.2 million mph

Most Popular

• 2 Marvel's main 'Star Wars' comic book line to progress into the New Republic era this fall
• 3 Next Blue Origin space tourism flight will launch youngest woman above the Kármán line
• 4 Watch China test-fire engine for new crewed moon rocket (video)
• 5 Space is becoming an 'unsustainable environment in the long term,' ESA says

Almost half of Moon missions fail. Why is space still so hard?

Senior Lecturer in Physics, RMIT University

Disclosure statement

Gail Iles does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

RMIT University provides funding as a strategic partner of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

In 2019, India attempted to land a spacecraft on the Moon – and ended up painting a kilometres-long streak of debris on its barren surface. Now the Indian Space Research Organisation has returned in triumph, with the Chandrayaan-3 lander successfully touching down near the south pole of Earth’s rocky neighbour.

India’s success came just days after a spectacular Russian failure , when the Luna 25 mission tried to land nearby and “ceased to exist as a result of a collision with the lunar surface”.

Read more: India's Chandrayaan-3 landed on the south pole of the Moon − a space policy expert explains what this means for India and the global race to the Moon

These twin missions remind us that, close to 60 years after the first successful “soft landing” on the Moon, spaceflight is still difficult and dangerous. Moon missions in particular are still a coin flip, and we have seen several high-profile failures in recent years.

Why were these missions unsuccessful and why did they fail? Is there a secret to the success of countries and agencies who have achieved a space mission triumph?

An exclusive club

The Moon is the only celestial location humans have visited (so far). It makes sense to go there first: it’s the closest planetary body to us, at a distance of around 400,000 kilometres.

Yet only four countries have achieved successful “soft landings” – landings which the spacecraft survives – on the lunar surface.

The USSR was the first. The Luna 9 mission safely touched down on the Moon almost 60 years ago, in February 1966. The United States followed suit a few months later, in June 1966, with the Surveyor 1 mission.

China was the next country to join the club, with the Chang'e 3 mission in 2013. And now India too has arrived, with Chandrayaan-3 .

Missions from Japan, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, Russia, the European Space Agency, Luxembourg, South Korea and Italy have also had some measure of lunar success with fly-bys, orbiters and impacts (whether intentional or not).

Crashes are not uncommon

On August 19 2023, the Russian space agency Roscosmos announced that “communication with the Luna 25 spacecraft was interrupted”, after an impulse command was sent to the spacecraft to lower its orbit around the Moon. Attempts to contact the spacecraft on August 20 were unsuccessful, leading Roscosmos to determine Luna 25 had crashed.

Despite more than 60 years of spaceflight experience extending from the USSR to modern Russia, this mission failed. We don’t know exactly what happened – but the current situation in Russia, where resources are stretched thin and tensions are high due to the ongoing war in Ukraine, may well have been a factor.

Read more: Russia has declared a new space race, hoping to join forces with China. Here's why that's unlikely

The Luna 25 failure recalled two high-profile lunar crashes in 2019.

In April that year, the Israeli Beresheet lander crash-landed after a gyroscope failed during the braking procedure, and the ground control crew was unable to reset the component due to a loss of communications. It was later reported a capsule containing microscopic creatures called tardigrades, in a dormant “cryptobiotic” state, may have survived the crash.

And in September, India sent its own Vikram lander down to the surface of the Moon – but it did not survive the landing. NASA later released an image taken by its Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter showing the site of the Vikram lander’s impact. Debris was scattered over almost two dozen locations spanning several kilometres.

Space is still risky

Space missions are a risky business. Just over 50% of lunar missions succeed . Even small satellite missions to Earth’s orbit don’t have a perfect track record, with a success rate somewhere between 40% and 70%.

We could compare uncrewed with crewed missions: around 98% of the latter are successful , because people are more invested in people. Ground staff working to support a crewed mission will be more focused, management will invest more resources, and delays will be accepted to prioritise the safety of the crew.

Read more: I'm training to become Australia's first woman astronaut. Here's what it takes

We could talk about the details of why so many uncrewed missions fail. We could talk about technological difficulties, lack of experience, and even the political landscapes of individual countries.

But perhaps it’s better to step back from the details of individual missions and look at averages, to see the overall picture more clearly.

The big picture

Rocket launches and space launches are not very common in the scheme of things. There are around 1.5 billion cars in the world, and perhaps 40,000 aeroplanes . By contrast, there have been fewer than 20,000 space launches in all of history.

Plenty of things still go wrong with cars, and problems occur even in the better-regulated world of planes, from loose rivets to computers overriding pilot inputs. And we have more than a century of experience with these vehicles, in every country on the planet.

So perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect spaceflight – whether it’s the launch stage of rockets, or the even rarer stage of trying to land on an alien world – to have ironed out all its problems.

We are still very much in the early, pioneering days of space exploration.

Monumental challenges remain

If humanity is ever to create a fully fledged space-faring civilisation, we must overcome monumental challenges .

To make long-duration, long-distance space travel possible, there are a huge number of problems to be solved. Some of them seem within the realm of the possible, such as better radiation shielding, self-sustaining ecosystems, autonomous robots, extracting air and water from raw resources, and zero-gravity manufacturing. Others are still speculative hopes, such as faster-than-light travel, instantaneous communication, and artificial gravity.

Read more: New warp drive research dashes faster than light travel dreams – but reveals stranger possibilities

Progress will be little by little, small step by slightly larger step. Engineers and space enthusiasts will keep putting their brainpower, time and energy into space missions, and they will gradually become more reliable.

And maybe one day we’ll see a time when going for a ride in your spacecraft is as safe as getting in your car.

Correction: a typing error in the original version of this article put the Surveyor 1 mission in 1996, rather than its actual year of 1966.

• Space travel
• Space exploration
• Lunar lander
• Indian Space Research Organization
• Chinese space program
• Moon missions

Senior Lecturer, HRM or People Analytics

Post doctoral research fellow or research fellow in mindfulness & mental health

Organizational Behaviour – Assistant / Associate Professor (Tenure-Track)

Apply for State Library of Queensland's next round of research opportunities

Associate Professor, Psychology

There’s No Way to Make Space Travel Good for Planet Earth Right Now

S paceX has never been reluctant to brag, especially when it comes to its celebrated Falcon 9 rocket. Since 2010, as a company toteboard shows, 217 Falcon 9s have flown, with 61 launches in 2022 alone, making it the workhorse of the current global space fleet. So what’s not to like? Plenty, actually—at least if you care about the environment.

The Falcon 9 uses a fuel mixture of liquid oxygen and simple kerosene, and while the oxygen does not do any harm to the skies, the black soot created by the burning kerosene is injected directly into the stratosphere—the layer of air ranging from 12 km (7.5 mi.) to 50 km (31 mi.) above the Earth. There the soot lingers for up to five years , absorbing heat, contributing to climate change, and damaging the ozone layer, which exposes the planet to dangerous ultraviolet (UV) radiation. And SpaceX is not remotely alone.

According to a study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global rocket launches (of which there were 180 last year, the study notes) inject about 1,000 tons of soot into the upper atmosphere per year. That will only get worse, NOAA warns, as the industry continues to expand. “The bottom line is projected increases in rocket launches could expose people in the Northern Hemisphere [where most rocket launches take place] to increased harmful UV radiation,” environmental scientist Christopher Maloney, the study’s lead author, said in a statement .

By themselves, rocket launches are small contributors to overall atmospheric pollutants. The aviation industry burns 100 times more fuel each year than all of the rockets launched globally combined. But there is a key atmospheric difference: airplanes fly in the troposphere about 11 km (6.6 mi.) above the ground. Soot precipitates quickly from this range compared to stratospheric soot which sticks around much longer. Indeed, according to the NOAA report, a single passenger aboard a rocket is responsible for 100 times more climate-changing pollution than a passenger aboard an airplane.

Not only does all of this warm the planet and damage the ozone, the NOAA scientists warn, but the change in temperatures can also slow subtropical jet streams , worsening summer monsoons in Africa and India. “We need to learn more about the potential impact of hydrocarbon-burning engines on the stratosphere and on the climate at the surface of the Earth,” said Maloney.

A version of this story also appears in the Climate is Everything newsletter. To sign up, click here .

The type of fuel used in the rockets can make a difference. SpaceX’s massive, 33-engine Starship spacecraft , for example, uses methane in place of kerosene. While methane is a powerful greenhouse gas by itself, it does burn cleaner than kerosene, putting out less black soot. Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket is cleaner still, burning liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, and producing only water vapor as an exhaust—water vapor in the upper atmosphere still traps and retains heat, but not nearly as much as black soot, methane, or carbon dioxide do.

None of this means that the private rocket industry or growing space powers like China, India, and the United Arab Emirates—to say nothing of the U.S.—will be slowing down their launch schedules or becoming less pollution-intensive any time soon. Indeed, NASA’s new Space Launch System moon rocket, which first launched in November 2022, is an especially dirty machine. While it uses a liquid oxygen-hydrogen mix in its four main engines, its two attached solid fuel engines, which account for most of the vehicle’s thrust, produce the ozone-damaging pollutant chlorine.

The thriving space industry is typically seen as a boon for both the economy and for human exploration—and it is. But the launching of a monster rocket—with monster exhaust—like SpaceX’s anticipated Starship is a reminder that there can be too much of a good thing. If we keep increasing not just the size of rockets but the number of launches, we do so at a price; and as with so many other things, it is the climate that pays.

More Must-Reads from TIME

• Why Biden Dropped Out 
• Ukraine’s Plan to Survive Trump
• The Rise of a New Kind of Parenting Guru
• The Chaos and Commotion of the RNC in Photos
• Why We All Have a Stake in  Twisters’ Success
• 8 Eating Habits That Actually Improve Your Sleep
• Welcome to the Noah Lyles Olympics
• Get Our Paris Olympics Newsletter in Your Inbox

Write to Jeffrey Kluger at [email protected]