atching the space shuttle Discovery's fiery ascent from the launch pad last Tuesday, a friend commented: "It's such a waste of tax money, and, sometimes, lives."

My friend isn't alone. The Challenger explosion in 1986 and Columbia's tragic re-entry in 2003 have fueled talk that the cost/benefit ratio of the space program tilts inexorably to the former.

Is the space program simply an all-too-expensive and dangerous play toy — or is there more to it?

The first thing we hear from a NASA critic is that the money spent on the space program could be better spent on social programs here on Earth. In 2004, the federal government spent around $1 trillion for Social Security, Medicare and other health benefits. In that same year, NASA was funded to the tune of $8 billion. Ending space exploration to help these already heavily funded social programs would be like getting rid of your cat so you can put the money saved on his food toward the purchase of a beach house in the Hamptons.

In reading the text of a speech delivered years ago by the second man to walk on the moon, Buzz Aldrin, I was amazed with one analogy made by the astronaut that discredited the "zero-sum game" mindset. He pointed out that a society is like a balloon — a successful one will expand in all directions. In other words, you can't blow up only one side of a balloon, and if you try, it will pop. "People who say 'social programs, not space exploration,' will get neither," Aldrin brilliantly noted.

In many ways, the quest for space is a social program.

NASA must continue exploration; it's a social program for our future

What other social program can supply humanity, especially children, with fascination, awe, the inspiration to dream and achieve and the lesson that nothing is impossible?

Other social programs are an easier sell, and if there's one thing a politician likes, it's ease. Though fueled by money, the ultimate goal of the space program is not a fiscal one.

The space program is only limited by imagination and its goal boundaries. A terrestrial social program's limit and goal is the bottom of your pocket. One is much easier and more convenient to reach than the other. The nearest star system is about 250 trillion miles away — your wallet is on the dresser. Which is the government more likely to focus on first?

Our quest for the heavens is pushed forward by wonder, genius, creativity, desire, and a drive toward discovery.

It's a huge ambition, one that excites, motivates and is remembered by all. What other social program does that for people? How many kids will grow up to reminisce about gathering around the television, giddy with nervous anticipation and jaw-dropping marvel, to watch the arrival of Uncle Billy's Social Security check?

The space program fulfills our childlike fantasies and dreams, propelling humanity forward. This, in turn, pushes the dream farther out, to be chased by the next generation.

Discovery must not be allowed to skip a generation. If it does, the dream lingers — and soon withers and dies. We could perish, too, if some of the environmental pessimists are correct.

I don't like the idea that we could become extinct just because some wingnut politico ignored the space exploration option because he was convinced that the key to preserving the human race was banning SUVs and stopping my wife from using hair spray.

NASA is a federally-funded agency in danger of becoming a bureaucratic nightmare and the space program risks entanglement in red tape; it's also possible that someday a planet will be named after a senator.

But, we'll have to take the good with the bad, for the cost of not climbing toward the heavens, both intellectually and physically, is far greater than even a failed effort.

The space program must and can continue, not only without sacrificing earthly necessities, but to their benefit.