Pros And Cons Of A Separate Air Force

Many critics believe that NASA and space exploration should not be the main focus of the government. However, NASA is not just about flying rockets and putting men into space. There is science and engineering that is being developed to push humanity forward in life. This space program is essential to answering philosophical questions, creating new technology for practical everyday use, the international collaboration with other countries, and the long-term survival of the human

In this essay, President John F. Kennedy builds an argument to persuade his readers in investing in space exploration. Kennedy uses analogies and reasoning to build his argument towards investing in space exploration. Kennedy’s speech had a powerful impact on the decision whether to direct the resources of the United States toward the construction of a space program.

As President Eisenhower once stated, “Every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed” (qtd in DeGroot). According to Jerry DeGroot, a lecturer in the Department of Modern History at the University of St. Andrews and author of the widely acclaimed biography “Douglas Haig”, every year, the United States federal government funds the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) with over $17 billion. When Keith Yost, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), was asked about government funding on NASA, he replied, “NASA is not only spending money, but also the sweat of our laborers, the genius of our scientists, and the hopes of our children.” As a powerhouse in the work industry, NASA is taking away from the remainder of the country. Before venturing off into space, the US needs to realize the importance of tackling the issues that lie before the citizens here on Earth. As Richard Truly, a retired Vice Admiral in the United States Navy, stated in agreement, “...I didn’t go to NASA for the United States to make international commitments that wouldn’t keep, to design space vehicles that will never be built (or will be then fail), or to make promises to the American people that will never be kept.” It would be in the best interest for the citizens of the United States federal government to cut NASA funding.

In the beginning the national space program and initial introduction of space policy coalitions where not that big of a deal since the program fell under one organization NASA. Bosso and Kay point out that during this time being in favor of space was to be in favor of NASA and expensive, massive highly technical programs like the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo. (Bosso & Kay, pg 49) These coalitions encompass personnel in different areas of the political forum that have a common focus on which direction to try to shape policy.

“A Renewed Spirit of Discovery” was the title of President Bush’s speech for his vision of new Space Exploration. Since the debate was given on January 14, 2004, it has produced viable concerns from those who support and oppose the initiative. Arguments for and against it have appeared in all types of media, and more importantly in the minds of Americans. This Literature Review will discuss many of these beliefs in order to achieve a well-rounded, objective analysis of the issue. But before any opinions are put forth, it is always important to talk about the relative facts.

The reason why the Air Force became a separate branch was because troops needed support on a specific widespread range of military work. If troops were to get hurt during a war the Air Force provides air support and first aid assistance. The main purpose of the United States Air Force is to fly “the sky was never the limit”-( U.S Air Force), it is also to fight and conquer. They represent our superior power. President Harry S. Truman signed the National Security Act of nineteen forty seven on the twenty sixth of July. It was not until “W. Stuart Symington was sworn into office that the Air Force was officially formed.” (google) dated eighteen of September nineteen forty seven. The Air Force turns sixty eight years old of being in

“I am proud to be part of a species where a subset of its members willingly put their lives at risk to push the boundaries of our existence,” said by Neil deGrasse Tyson. With this quote you, the reader, can clearly see the impact that space exploration has had on society but, why should the United States continue to fund the space program? Well, the United States should continue to fund the space program because, it can improve the medical field, improve weather forecasting to keep more citizens safe, and it can provide breakthroughs in technology and within society. With this, I believe the the united states would continue funding the space program and allowing us to push the limits of space.

For more than 50 years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has explored space funded by taxes collected by the US government. There are many benefits stemming from space exploration however, many people don't support funding NASA and believe it is a waste of money. In 2002, the budget proposal for the fiscal year funded $18.7 billion to NASA. This means that "a little more than half a penny of every federal tax dollar ends up at NASA” (NASA's $18.7-Billion Budget: How Much Do You Contribute 1). This means a family with median household income pays $33 per year to find a space program. Space exploration is expensive however, the knowledge and technologies has brought us has improved a quality of life on Earth.

1. This is a position paper on how the Air Force should not recruit officers with only science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) degrees. First, it will look at why a diverse educational background force is a good idea. Next, it will look at why a 100 percent STEM force would be a good idea. Finally, arguments will be laid out supporting the position that educational diversity should remain a constant in the officer corps.

Space exploration negatively affects human society, and space in many more ways than it does positively. The 15 U.S naval expeditions from 1840-1860 approached one quarter of the annual federal budget, by far exceeding even the Apollo commitment. The U.S should not fond space exploration because of the cost, the lives risked, and dangerous organisms coming to earth.

The arguments against establishing a separate space force are becoming less relevant on a daily basis as the demand and dependence on space capabilities grow. Many leaders view space as a seamless domain to air, while this may hold some truth, consider the other branches also operate in the air domain, meaning one domain does not solely belong to one branch of service.7 These shared environments require joint coordination from all parties.8 Another common argument is the costs associated with reorganizing efforts.9 These costs would appear steep in the beginning, however giving the space force a separate budget and command would allow for efficiency and effectiveness to grow over time.10 History has proven this with the separation of the Air Force from the Army Air

Domestically, the investment into space weapons may be a tough sale to the public, especially at a time when investment elsewhere could impact many lives in the short-term. Still, other may think that the deployment of space weapons is unnecessary or a waste of resources. At this early stage, it would be easy to come to that conclusion. Nevertheless, if the US does not begin to dominate the space arena, another actor

The writer argues that unmanned space flight is more effective than sending men to space because it is productive, cost effective and less risky. However, the writer does not provide sufficient information to permit a proper evaluation of the argument's reasoning. Accordingly, the argument is not entirely logically convincing because it relies on wrong assumptions. Below are three major deficiencies that enfeeble the argument.

The article mainly discusses the economical problem NASA faces due to the Obama administration. It talks about how the Obama administration has cut down NASA spendings by 440 million dollars. This can affect the United States’ learning of outer space. The article states that there is mother worries that have to be settled within the country and explains how the government cannot keep up on funding NASA. It states that private space travel is not a problem that concerns the US government because it is a private company's decision to manufacturer space shuttles and put people in space. It is stated that NASA should only intervene in space topics and not make up the decisions for private space travel.

Space power advocates believe creating a separate Space Force would ensure that space power is not treated as an extension of air power and that development was based on actual space warfare theory.6 This would allow the Space Force to focus on receiving funding for space projects opposed to competing with new airframes in the Air Force.7 The foundation of current space power theory and doctrine is faulty due to it being based on the air power model.8 By splitting into a separate Space Force, a suitable space power theory and doctrine would be developed that would suit the space program much better and be tailored more to its needs.9 “U.S. space power will never fully develop as long as it must compete for funding and institutional support inside an Air Force dominated by Airmen