Elon Musk, Esquire.com’s 37th most influential person, says, ”Sooner or later, we must expand life beyond our little blue mud ball—or go extinct.” (“Elon Musk - Entrepreneur on the grandest scale”). If this statement about the future of the human race isn’t absolutely terrifying then a reevaluation of your major concerns is necessary because you are missing the ingrained human instinct of survival. While the impending doom of Earth and everyone on it should be an issue of the utmost importance, the voting population and Congress of the United States seem to disagree. This opinion is apparent when looking at the funding of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, more commonly known as NASA. The $18.01 billion budget was approved by Senate for the fiscal year of 2015 and although this is an enormous amount of money, it is only 0.46% of the $3.90 trillion annual expenses of the US federal government (“Fiscal Year 2015 Budget of the U.S. Government” 174). Obviously there is more important uses of the budget than funding space exploration, but sadly, this is not always the case. The Citizens Against Government Waste creates a yearly “Prime Cut” report that details largely ineffective government programs that could be eliminated. This year’s report suggests a possibility of around $648 billion in savings for 2015. A few examples of these suggested cuts involve the $1.1 million funding for USAID staff parties, incredibly wasteful loans and grants for utilities such as
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.
Although it is true that there is no concrete outcome “for using taxpayer money” to fund space programs, it does not mean in any way that the money is not being used to help our society grow (Source H). The bulk of the money funded to space exploration goes towards the incomes of thousands of skilled employees who create such successful space missions. It can be assumed that less than one percent is being used from the federal dollar on manned space programs, as space exploration falls under the “All others” category which spends six percent of every federal tax dollar (Source C). Space exploration programs have the potential to discover new technologies and expand on what we have here on Earth, but in order to succeed, there needs to be slight altercations with how each federal tax dollar is spent. National defense gets nineteen percent of each federal tax dollar – a proportion that is too extraordinary considering the United States has access to a nuclear arsenal which is far less expensive and just as effective as maintaining conventional forces (Source C). The United States is pretty much the military for half the world, so instead of collecting all the money from our tax payers here in America, we should collect from other counties that we protect as
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..
“The current spending is only 0.4% of the U.S. budget, in 2005 it was 0.7%. This is an important question, not just for me but for the entire concerned human race. Because the NASA program is a key to the defense of not only this country, but the planet and the humans that seclude in it. In addition, NASA has recently discovered signs of water on Mars, and I think this is a valid reason. Also, the NASA funding cuts take a toll by reducing its employment; in which it affects the economy significantly.
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.
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.
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.
“If you wanted to create a diabolical problem, it is hard to imagine doing it better than releasing CO2 into the atmosphere” (Newell and Pitman 1007).
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.
In the 2017 fiscal year (Oct. 2016-Sept. 2017), the budget for NASA was 19 billion US dollars [1]. However, the total budget for the United States in 2017 is 3,650 billion US dollars [2] making the NASA budget only .52% of the United States budget for the 2017 fiscal year. Even though 19 billion US dollars seem like a large amount of money, in comparison to 1966, the height of the Apollo mission, the budget for NASA was 5.9 billion United States dollars [3] which was .83% of the National budget of 708 billion dollars [4]. Also, with the 122 million citizens [5] reported to pay federal taxes in the United States, each taxpayer only contributes about $12.98 a month to NASA, so if NASA were to disappear, the average taxpayer could afford