AP English Q1 The first bout of manned Space Exploration dates back to the 1960s Cold-War era when Neil

Armstrong and his crew stepped out of Apollo 11, and placed mans mark on extra-terrestrial terrain. The pictures and clips received from space were not enough to appease our insatiable hunger for more. It was like a dream come true for many, a monumental leap forward into the future, utilizing the knowledge we had gained over time. Indeed, enabled us to capture human imagination, expand our horizons, and understand the complex phenomena of the vast universe. However, such experience is marred if it comes at the expense of the conditions, and current state of our own home planet. Livingston (Source A) boldly mentions in his article that manned explorations are absolutely necessary, worth the cost, and spent wisely on manufacture, research, and development costs. Now, all this looks very good on paper when we are living in a perfect world with perfect economy, peace, and harmony. Unfortunately, Pandora did open the box of evils. Even after reaching the stage where we have the power and technology to cross the boundary that was the sky, we have our own share of weaknesses. As responsible stewards, we need to prioritize what is right for us, and what needs to be dealt with first. Yes, manned missions are essential for the future, and the advancement of space programs. However, in my opinion, we are not ready for such highly complex missions which require huge financial support, yet. As McLean (Source E) correctly mentions- before we think of exploring and potentially exploiting the final frontier, we would do well to remember that we do not have a very good track record in protecting our planet home. Our planet is clearly not at its finest conditions, and to fix that should be our topmost priority. The astronauts leaving for space will eventually have to return back to their home planet, which is a beauty from the outside, but suffering from a multitude of diseases like war, poverty, and pollution on the inside.

For instance, The US is sitting atop a paramount of debt due to war, and various other conflicts around the world. Over a seventh of the Earths population live in poverty under life threatening conditions, primarily due to improper sanitation, and lack of food. Last, but not least, we have discovered that having used up natural resources in an uncontrolled manner, we have polluted the environment, started global warming, and threatened the existence of many life forms by destroying their natural habitat. I think that the world would definitely be a better place if part of the six percent of a citizens tax money (Source C) which amalgamates to form the $17 billion dollars (Source E), flies to places where the money is really needed, than to NASA. A world free from disease, a world free from hunger, would be a greater achievement than a landing on Mars. Currently, space projects stand for nothing more but a tag of prestige for the countries like the US, China, Russia, India, Japan, and the European Space Agency (Source A), all of which plan on investing on the manned space act in one way or another. Unlike what Livingston claims, these programs have not solved any problems for these countries, not enhanced life for the people of Earth, and definitely not shown us how we can all live together in peace. It is worth noting that Americas journey to space itself began with war, not to mention various conflicts in the Middle East that followed even after the supposedly life-changing extra-terrestrial experience. Thus, in short, we need to stop chasing after this elusive dream called space exploration until we can maintain, and solidify our own ground. Spending money on space programs and calling it an investment because one day we might strike gold is not justified when these resources could be spent on making our world a better place to live in. It is like flying without knowing how to land, and that almost always ends in a crash landing-a fate we want to avoid.