Should US Government Decrease Nasa's Funding?

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is perhaps the most well known space agency in the world. Since its formation in 19581, it has pioneered in space science, yet is also renowned for its large budget. NASA has the highest budget of any space agency, $18.6 billion2 in 2015, the equivalent of every American paying $54 towards the agency3, meaning 0.14% of total GDP is spent on NASA3 . This money is spent on the ISS, sending astronauts, probes and satellites into space, astrophysics and planetary science research, maintaining and developing NASA’s space telescopes (the Wide Field Infrared Survey telescope searching for dark energy and exoplanets, the James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope) and developing spacecraft2. Space exploration is an incredibly expensive process with one shuttle launch costing $450 million4 however NASA’s colossal budget benefits the USA greatly; the agency employs 18,000 people5 as astronauts, engineers, scientists and teachers and G. Scott Hubbard, former director of the NASA Ames Research Center estimates that every dollar spent on NASA returns $8 to the economy6.While this figure is an estimate, it demonstrates NASA’s worth and capacity for money making. NASA works on pioneering research and as its patents and licenses return to the US treasury, it

In the past 50 years, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has sent out many planned space exploration missions which have lead to numerous advantages in society and culture. NASA’s technologies benefit American lives with the innumerable important breakthroughs by creating new markets that have spurred the economy and changed countless lives in many ways. NASA is a federal agency and receives its fundings from the annual federal budget passed by the United States Congress. However, there are conflicting opinions that consider whether or not funding for NASA is a waste of government spending.

How would you like to explore a never-ending frontier filled with endless potential and possible benefits for humankind? When put this way, space exploration sounds like an enticing adventure. However, is it all that it’s chalked up to be? We’re here to answer that question. There’s a specific issue that we need to consider when referring to space exploration; should we continue to fund NASA? We acknowledge that some people may already have strong opinions on this, and we ask you to keep an open mind and try to avoid bias. After all, we’re discussing our future.

The public’s lack of knowledge about NASA’s research explains why many people believe that the organization is receiving too much funding. According to NASA.gov, the organization has received 19.3 billion dollars for the 2016 fiscal year. This equates to about 0.486% of the government budget. While this may seem like a lot, the percentage has drastically decreased over the past few decades by almost 3.5%. NASA is receiving “more money each year, but at the same time a smaller percentage of the federal budget” (Steinburg 240). There are projects that NASA is currently working on that they cannot finish due to lack of funding. If NASA can find a way to receive more funding, then not only can the organization capitalize on these current projects, but it can also open up discussion for future ones as well. The possibilities of what humans can achieve is endless, the only restrictions are time and money, two of the most important factors in society. While time can’t be controlled, money can. Now it’s just a matter of getting more of it, which is going to be hard for NASA to do, especially when people feel as though they are receiving too much funding.

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.

With the threat of Congress cutting NASA 's budget, the United State 's sixty year preeminence in space exploration is in serious peril..

“One small step for man, one giant step for mankind” - Neil Armstrong. Humans have been fascinated by stars and planets from the beginning of time.The human race has made some amazing discoveries; from drawings on cave walls, to putting somebody in space. Discoveries in space include finding new planets, technology, and theories. In recent years, there have been less discoveries due to a cut in NASA’s budget. This is because instead of the money going to NASA, the money goes to other organizations. The U.S should increase NASA’s budget because it helps find planets that could support life, creates more everyday objects, and gives ideas of how the earth might end.

In July of 1958, President Eisenhower passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which established the National Aeronautics and Space Administration as a response to the Soviet Union's launch of Sputnik nine months earlier. That administration, now known worldwide as NASA, has become an icon of space exploration and mankind's accomplishments. Who would have thought that fifty years later, NASA's future would be so uncertain? Congress has recently proposed a bill that would significantly cut funding from the NASA's Constellation program. These budget cuts are unnecessary and are counterproductive to the original idea of the space program.

“There is perhaps no better a demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world.” Carl Sagan said this after seeing a picture of the Earth taken from the Voyager 1. In the image there is a tiny little speck that is barely noticeable unless it is pointed out. That little speck is our planet.Government spending on NASA has helped to achieve this and it allows us to see things about our universe that we would have never have had been able to see before. NASA funding can be beneficial because it shows us things about our universe that we have never known and things we would have never thought to explore.This is what NASA is trying to accomplish. However NASA funding can be detrimental because it costs more and more each year and it pushes us into even more debt than what we are already in. This can contribute to the downfall of the economy and the nation as a whole because of the increase in spending, and will lead to cuts in other more crucial parts of the government and the economy where the money would be better spent. Government funding for NASA is a benefit to society but, it is also a detriment to society as well.

Though the government still had not yet fully recovered financially from World War II, the increased tensions and anxiety of the Cold War drove them to spend an excessive amount of money on National Security and space exploration. The potential expenses of NASA originally made Eisenhower hesitant when it came to the issue of space exploration, but with the Soviet Union’s looming presence in space, he reluctantly decided that it was the expenses were necessary to the country’s national defense. Though organizations like PSAC helped fund some of NASA’s projects, the federal government still ended up spending sixty-billion dollars on NASA and the military combined. If it were not for consumer spending, then all the federal spending would have resulted in major inflation and would have effected the outcome of the war. Although some say the government’s excessive spending during the Space Race threatened inflation, others feel that it was beneficiary to the country’s weak economy. While there are some valid arguments supporting this claim, the Space Race tore through the United States’ economy and ran the risk of financial havoc. Though the creation of NASA greatly damaged the economy, the research and technological advancements that came out of the military working with NASA can justify the excessive spending of federal

It’s believed that NASA contributes in many ways, such as our economy, scientific morale, our vision as progressive Americans, and overall progression of knowledge. Most of these ideas have to do with the greater good of now, and our future. Michael McBrien cautions us against removing funds, and in fact suggests increasing funds because our world benefits in ways beyond what’s obvious. Examples of things that would be affected by the defunding of NASA are well paying jobs and defending against NEO’s (Near Earth Objects). The problem in the article is when McBrien shows his obvious bias for government programs when he says, “The cost of NASA, as is true of almost any government agency, is worth it.” McBrien has now showed the readers that, beyond the intention to persuade people about NASA funding, he is pro-government-spending in other areas as well. This resonates because it leaves many readers who more conservative, but believe in the idea of funding NASA, isolated and weary to buy into the

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), is one of the programs that the government has decided it cannot continue to finance at its current rates, and the money being put into NASA has been cut back. This is definitely not a smart place to make spending cuts and, at least for the near future, this trend of lessened government support needs to be reversed. By using budget cuts as a possible solution to

Currently, an estimated half a million people in the United States have a job description that relates to space, and NASA is “the strongest power that provides jobs in the space industry” (Machay 128-9). Each of those citizens contributes their knowledge and money to the national economy. NASA also promotes job growth: “Giving $1 billion to NASA can create some 24,000 jobs via contracts to the private sector” (128). Those potential employees would provide diversity and experience that could only advance the country. Thus, removing NASA funding would potentially leave thousands unemployed, halt the growth of hundreds of jobs per year, and subsequently encumber the economy. It is nonsensical to damage the nation in this way in exchange for a small percentage of the federal budget, when NASA clearly has such as positive

Imagine you are a father of four children. Your wife passes away from cancer and your family is in desperate need for food. Your family lives in a dilapidated apartment and you work your fingers to the bone to pay the taxes. You want the money that you paid the government to be used efficiently in a way that will affect you directly, such as healthcare, food, or education, not to reach the moon. Yet the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used about $18 billion in 2014 for their budget. NASA was created by the United States for the research and development of spacecrafts. The United States and the Soviet Union engaged in the Space Race during the Cold War with the development of technology. Achieving human spaceflight enabled them to discover and explore outer space and the rest of the universe. NASA, however, has outlived its original purpose and has cost more than its worth by misusing its time and resources.

Funding shouldn’t be cut from NASA because of all the good things they have done for space exploration. They could do so much more without the funding being cut.