@ISIDEWITHQuestionsscience7mos ago

Should the EU invest more heavily in its own space exploration and satellite programs?

Increased investment in space exploration could boost technological innovation and strategic independence. Proponents see it as advancing scientific knowledge and economic potential. Opponents question the priority and cost effectiveness compared to earthbound issues.

+
Expand
+ Settings x  

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 289 Liguria voters.

62%
Yes
38%
No
62%
Yes
38%
No

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 289 Liguria voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 289 Liguria voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from Liguria voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @9MSNGWTanswered…6mos6MO

Yes, I believe it is important, but only if we can use it as an opportunity to scale back far less important research and development projects.

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Space Exploration” news articles, updated frequently.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

NASA’s $100 Billion Moon Mission Is Going Nowhere

There are government boondoggles, and then there’s NASA’s Artemis program.More than a half century after Neil Armstrong’s giant leap for mankind, Artemis was intended to land astronauts back on the moon. It has so far spent nearly $100 billion without anyone getting off the ground, yet its complexity and outrageous waste are still spiraling upward. The next US president should rethink the program in its entirety.As someone who greatly respects science and strongly supports space exploration, the more I have learned about Artemis, the more it has become apparent that it is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.The problems start with the mission, which is more political than scientific. There is little humans can do on the moon that robots cannot. Technology has come a long way since 1969, to put it mildly. We do not need another person on the moon to collect rocks or take scientific measurements. And the costs of putting people on the moon — and of planning for their potential rescue, should complications arise — are truly astronomical.To understand the level of wasteful spending, forget the $1 billion in spacesuits that have yet to be delivered. That’s pocket change compared to the rocket, called the Space Launch System. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s inspector general estimates the program has so far burned through $23.8 billion. Each launch will likely cost at least $4 billion, quadruple initial estimates. This exceeds private-sector costs many times over, yet it can launch only about once every two years and — unlike SpaceX’s rockets — can’t be reused.Even if the Space Launch System is completed, there’s a hitch: It isn’t even powerful enough to actually get anyone to the moon, at least not in its current configuration. It will instead deposit its capsule, called Orion, into what’s called near-rectilinear halo orbit. Here, the capsule — which, despite $20 billion being poured into it, currently has a faulty heat shield — must rendezvous with a landing spacecraft, which will then take the astronauts to the lunar surface. And getting the landing spacecraft into orbit, before it can be propelled toward the moon to meet Orion, is itself a complex process.

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.