"Space: the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship Enterprise. Its five-year mission: to explore strange new worlds; to seek out new life and new civilisations; to boldly go where no man has gone before" (Star Trek). Back in the 60s, space travel was big. A few years after that man made it’s first step on the Moon. It was a massive advancement in science. It all started when President Eisenhower formed a group of highly trained individuals out of other groups, such as the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, or NACA, to try to out-science the Soviet Union in the space race. This group would come to be known as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA. NASA was not the first group to get a human into space, however they were the first, and only, group to put a man on the Moon. It was a great time for science. Fast Forward to the present day. NASA is still around, but it’s under extreme pressure. NASA hasn’t done much of anything as of recent. Because of that, quite a few people are skeptical over whether we should continue to fund NASA if they are just going to keep taking money and producing no profit from it. Others, however, argue that NASA is indeed still relevant and producing necessary advancements. The question is should the United States continue to find NASA? The answer isn’t overly clear. While NASA makes significant advances in science, they are also wasting significant sums of money that could be going towards better
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.
While many people support funding NASA and agree with the organization’s goals, there a good number of people who do not. A common reason for this is that they believe that the space program should focus on discovering things that can benefit us immediately, not in the future. This is a valid argument because there
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..
America’s funding for NASA during the space race in 1966 was 4.41% of the federal budget yet in modern times this expenditure has fallen to only 0.5% of the federal budget. One might ask why, but the greater question is why isn’t anything being done about this dearth of funding for NASA. America should once again fund the exploration of space with a renewed ferocity because of the various educational, economical, and technological benefits of having well-funded space agencies.
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.
The concept of space exploration was first introduced to the American public in 1961 when President John F. Kennedy famously stood before congress and vowed that America would put a man on the moon “within the decade.” With hopes of defeating the Soviet Union in the “Space Race” and gaining a leg-up in the Cold War, NASA funding reached its all-time high in 1965-1966 when about four percent of the federal budget was devoted to exploring space. Since then however, funding dedicated to exploring space has nose-dived to about one-half of a percent of the federal budget (Tyson), with plans to cut that figure by an additional $260 million in 2017 (cite NASA funding cuts). Experts in the space-sciences field argue that increased funding in space exploration would re-ignite the American economy and return America to the scientific prominence it was once known for, while, on the other end of the spectrum, naysayers suggest that exploring space is an economic sink-hole that the United States can no longer afford to deposit to given its own earth-bound troubles.
Carl Sagan once said “every planetary civilization will be endangered by impacts from space, every surviving civilization is obliged to become spacefaring--not because of exploratory or romantic zeal, but for the most practical reason imaginable: staying alive... If our long-term survival is at stake, we have a basic responsibility to our species to venture to other worlds.” The National Aeronautics and Space Administration or NASA, is executing Sagan’s words every day. President Dwight D. Eisenhower created NASA in 1958 with the purpose of peaceful rather than military space exploration and research to contribute to society. Just 11 years after the creation, NASA put Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon, the first humans to
Some citizens believe that NASA is a waste of time. Some would venture to say the program has “no practical use to mankind” and the $17 billion of taxpayers money is put towards failed projects and a hope to get to another planet (Government funding). Every time the program goes into space there is no guarantee they will find something new. Spending money on ineffective trips is pointless for the taxpayers; every time the astronauts go into space they go to the same places making no progress. Since the United States is tied with NASA, the program prevents branches of the government placing space work with another agency, which prevents progress with other space agencies (Government funding). Before going into space, NASA should try to solve problems on Earth first. Such as making a car that doesn’t use gas or pollute the air, finding ways to fix the ozone layer, making less pollution by using renewable resources. Instead of going to Mars, solving issues such as global warming is very important to the Earth. Global warming and climate changes are very important to keeping the Earth a safe, healthy place to live. With the debt America is already in, spending more money to send people on the same missions into space over and over again is just spending more money than the States cannot
“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.
“Sputnik marked the beginning of the "space race," a period of nearly twenty years during which fierce US and Soviet competition spurred both countries to make rapid progress in aeronautic engineering,” (Lee). This period of time birthed a new program from the American government, called the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA. NASA has been building rockets, training astronauts, and studying space for the benefit of science, the government, and the people of America since 1958. Unfortunately, many people don't realize how important NASA is, and there have been efforts made to stop the government from funding NASA. This program is essential for increasing knowledge of outer space, protecting planet Earth, and creating
NASA themselves have not only contributed to exploring the vast, empty, yet strangely amazing area we call space, but they have also created products that we use in everyday life. The unfortunate thing is that NASA is receiving less and less of the funding that it needs in order to continue to operate at its top level. What's worse is that more and more people feel that NASA shouldn't be getting what it is now either, that they could go on with less. So then the question that needs to be answered is “Why should we keep funding NASA?”
In the early 60s, President John F. Kennedy led America into a space race against the Soviet Union. American men and women across the nation backed this goal, allowing NASA to take great leaps in advancing its space exploration programs. This unified nation fulfilled its goal, and Neil Armstrong became the first man to walk on the moon. However, since then, America’s space exploration has only declined. Funding for NASA has been drastically cut, thus greatly limiting the opportunities for exploring the cosmos. Understanding and exploring the universe is detrimental to the advancement of the United States and opens the door for vast possibilities. If the government chooses to limits its own advancement, then that responsibility must fall