Hawking on Space Travel

https://nationalpostcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/520642806.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=620

               The economics of outer space can be a blurry area. As we have seen there are many factors that must be taken into account when determining if space travel is economically a good idea. In my last article we explored the alternatives to space travel and what we could be using that funding on here on Earth. It all certainly caused questions to arise about the topic. However, Stephen Hawking, a world famous physicist and cosmetologist, has put doubts to rest in a lecture he gave to a group at George Washington University. He brings up the points that we are in a golden age for exploration and funding for space travel, as well as how we can do all of this while increasing funding and research in other problems on Earth. 

               Hawking starts his lecture by disproving a common misconception that space travel is extremely expensive. He notes that though from a numbers point of view it may seem like they are spending drastic amounts of money, but when you compare how much NASA spends compared to the national GDP it comes out to roughly 0.1%. Hawking also notes that the world has access to more resources that ever at this moment in time and it is important to allocate some of those resources to NASA now so that down the road we will not be forced to blow off space travel when faced with a scarcity of resources. Hawking believes that if we could increase spending on NASA by doubling it then we could be exploring possible host planets in two-hundred years, and he says all of this is possible while protecting our homeland. 

             Hawking brings up a curious point where he explains that it doesn't matter how much we spend on things as long as they are worth their cost. From his point of view, defense is a commonly over budgeted program by governments and that money should be going towards space exploration as well as a number of other things, specifically the environment. I would agree with this statement in that we do not have much need for large defensive budgeting at this point in time. Most of our warfare is technological and the cost far exceeds what it should at this point in time. Hawking brought up data suggesting that the U.S. cutting back on defensive spending could double spending in environment conservation as well as NASA, all while still spending more on defense than any other country in the world. This all helps explain a solution to everyones interests concerning this debate and I believe that all sides benefit from Hawking's argument. It is uncertain if cutting back on defense and increasing in NASA is practical, but it is an idea that may spark hundreds more.