Why do Science go to Mars when we could reach poor people on earth with some cash money? what do you thank?

NASA's budget is not nearly as high as that for the National Security

Mostly against home grown threats

no

Youre only poor because you ignored the lessons from history and opted for the class system.

Good Answers from Davros and PhotonX.

Suppose you have $500,000,000 and 500,000 people in an area that is difficult to get at. Parts of Africa where famines are frequent are good examples.

If you give one person $10,000 you have almost no effect on a local economy. You do have a big effect on that person of course.

If you give ten people $10,000 you have almost no effect on a local economy.

If you give 100 people $10,000 local prices start to rise since there is more money about but there are no more, or very few more goods and services available. This is called inflation. The other 499,900 people in the area get relatively poorer and they gain no skills from it.

If you give 1,000 people $10,000 local prices start to rise since there is more money about but there are no more, or very few more goods and services available. This is called inflation. The other 499,000 people in the area get relatively much poorer and they gain no skills from it.

Do you see where this is going? Just dumping the $500,000,000 on the population will cause huge problems. It is one of the factors that crippled Spain hundreds of years ago when it grabbed a vast quantity of almost free gold from South and Central America.

Now, what makes more sense is to use the $500,000,000 to survey the land, then build roads, bridges and railways, maybe dams in the areas. Good roads, bridges and railways reduce transport costs so food and other goods can arrive in the area more cheaply. Dams reduce the danger in droughts. This makes everyone in the area less poor, even if their income stays much the same. But their income rises as well since they are able to sell whatever surplus they produce in good years. Another factor is that a survey gives farmers and other people firm title to land which means they have some legal recourse if some more powerful neighbour tries to take away their land. (This has been a constant problem in parts of South America.)

The building program should happen over say 25 -30 years and most of the builders should come from the region of poverty. This gives them a steady income and skills. They spend their wages with local traders and farmers. Other businesses move in. What would be the effect of two hardware stores in a region where the closest other such store was 200 miles away over bad or non-existent roads? Meanwhile the owner of the $500,000,000 has not spent it all at once and has a reserve for emergency purposes.

A space program in any country is a way for government to increase incomes in that country and give work to tens of thousands of people over years. The research and education needed builds up the knowledge capital of your nation and spreads skills around. Even those who study to obtain a place in the program and don't quite make it have gained useful and marketable knowledge. This is why local governments will try to get almost any sort of scientific or other organisation to build in their county or shire, whatever you call it.

In comparison to how much can go to the poor, going to Mars uses a small amount.

I don't thank nothing . 640 billion for weapons and a didly 6 billion for extra terrestrial research? Find a government that can get it's beliefs straight.

That there are some people who think that others should just hand them some cash is a large part of that particular problem.

There were always poor people, going back to when the guy named Nuk took a shiny rock from the guy named Tak.. If we waited until we eliminated poverty before going exploring, we'd still be standing on Cape St. Vincent in Portugal, looking west and wandering what's beyond the horizon.

It's not like we're launching wads of twenty dollar bills and rolls of quarters to Mars. The money is spent right here on Earth to pay for materials to build the spacecraft and the salaries of scientists, engineers and technicians who design, build and operate the missions.

The scientists, engineers and the technicians, in turn, spend money to buy houses, clothes, furniture, food, going on vacations or out to the movies, providing employment (and income) for people who sell and fix cars, make furniture, sew clothes, grow and prepare food, make movies, etc. These people then also spend money on similar things, providing employment to even more people, and so on, and so on, and so on.

Well, let's figure it out...

According to Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Depart...

The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare received $1.023 *trillion* dollars in 2015. Most of that was in the Health and Welfare categories.

Compared with NASA: for the same year, NASA got $18 billion. HEW received about *56 times* NASA's budget... with the results that we have today.

So... we could still administer to the poor and hungry, or we can simply administer to the poor and hungry, while exploring the universe.

My thought is... learning how to survive in space on minimal resources may teach the rest of us on Earth how to survive the same way... the 1/56th that NASA's budget would add to HEW's wouldn't matter in the least.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for one day. Teach him how to fish and he will never go hungry.

Passing out cash money is equivalent to the first, while research (yes, even the research involved in going to mars) is equivalent to the second part.