“In our obscurity, in all this vastness, there is no hint that help will come from elsewhere to save us from ourselves. It is up to us. ”(Carl Sagan). Recently NASA discovered seven planets with Earth-like features that may one day save humans when Earth is gone. Three of those planets are habitable. Without NASA being funded, they would not have found those planets to help the human race. Someday the world will end, and although humans will do all they can, it is good to have a backup plan like to help. NASA should receive government funds because they have helped human’s health, and given us new technology. NASA has affected the environment's health in numerous ways. For instance, this text shows how life can drastically be changed from one small discovery. “These powerful rocket launchers that propel spacecrafts into space are now fighting fires.” (Zaina Adamu). This shows how these launchers have saved many lives physically and mentally. If they are powerful enough to launch spacecrafts into outer space, than these launchers must do wonders for fighting fires. Not only have they saved the lives of people caught in fires, they mentally help loved ones too. The close friends and family of people caught in …show more content…
Space travel costs billions of dollars and usually takes a while to give the public something that they want to hear, like a new planet being found. However, to be reasonable, America would not have the best economy in the world if they spent most of their money on NASA and not on the economy. While this position is popular, it is not logical. NASA uses less than two percent of the United State’s budget. “...1.2% of a taxpayer’s total income going to science, space and technology programs while national defense and education receives 26.3% and 4.8% of taxpayers; dollars...smallest budget of any major agency…” NASA is not wasting any of America’s budget, especially since they are only using
This is because if we let them, another country can one-up us which in the end can lead to major problems for the U.S. The NASA program also gives us a whole new insight to how we see things and how we live our lives daily. For example Google Maps, which is used by many people, uses satellite that we get from having this program. However, some of the money used for this category can be taken and put into another category such as the FBI. “The FBI is the Federal Bureau of Investigation which operates field offices in 58 cities to combat terrorism and crime” (Document E).
By increasing funds it would support cutting edge aeronautics and space technology innovations, education, and development that will help fuel the nation’s economy for years to come. In conclusion, NASA does not drain nearly as much money from the economy as it contributes, so the funding that goes to NASA is not all lost and should be seen as an investment.
Bill Nye, the “Science Guy,” asserts, “NASA is an engine of innovation and inspiration as well as the world's premier space exploration agency, and we are well served by politicians working to keep it that way, instead of turning it into a mere jobs program, or worse, cutting its budget.” The United States of America’s government is currently in an economic debt encompassing billions of US dollars. Unfortunately, the government has attempted to balance finances by cutting the funding for most programs, including NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA, in over half a century, has brought the most economic, technological, and social benefits than any other program held here in the USA, as well as any other extraterrestrial program in the world. The last thing this nation needs is the cutting of NASA finances. NASA should be receiving more funding because the Earth will not last forever and humans will need a place to live, there’s a curiosity within humans about the vast universe they live in, there is evidence to suggest life on other planets, the USA’s superpower status will be improved, and the economical income NASA brings is more efficient than any other governmental or educational program.
In 2013 spending on NASA will be at the lowest point in the last four years because the United States government is in extreme debt. Many feel that this will lead to a halt on all space exploration and technological advancements in the world of Astronomy. In my opinion I feel that this lack of funding for NASA will thoroughly hinder progress for future generations as well as our own.
Over the past few years, NASA has been the victim of larger and larger budget cuts. The United States government thinks that money that should be being used for funding NASA is more useful elsewhere. This is a real shame, space travel is the future. One day we will run out of resources,or become over crowded on Earth, and mankind will have to expand to the stars for another place to live. Space travel is our future and needs exploration. NASA should be more highly funded by the United States government, in order to continue research towards future objectives.
The question and controversy central to this paper and following ones will be “Should NASA be funded?” This question has several sub-questions and will need to be answered with accuracy and care. To further define the question, NASA’s current level of funding,
Earth has served as a good home for humans for many years, and will most likely
In conclusion, Continuing NASA and the programs run by it, is harmful to American society and Government. NASA harms the economy. NASA also harms the environment in which we live. And the money that NASA spends could be used to help solve problems in our country, not on another planet. Only if we work together, fixing our own problems first, respectfully with each other, as one body, one world, and one planet, then we will be able to reach out into space. We will be able to explore it safely, efficiently, and environmentally soundly.
Would you want to live on Mars? Some would say yes, others no, I am against going to Mars and think that we should stick to Earth and put our time, money, and energy into fixing this planet. I will show you all the reason why we can not go to that red planet.
According to Space.com the Federal Government approved a budget of $16.6 billion for NASA in 2014. Approximately 1/3 of that will be spent on space exploration.
The first time the term "space exploration" was coined was during the space race between the United States of America and the Union of Socialist Republics. People have argued that this war took place from as early as 1947 to as late as 1991. During this time the USA and the USSR were racing to see which country could reign supreme in terms of human spaceflight. Even thought the time period in which this race occurred has ended does not mean that space exploration stopped affected every human being. All though the space race ended, everything from technology, society, and the economy is still being affected to this very day.
We will throw trash on the ground, burn wood and smoke cigarets but don’t realize that we are destroying our planet while doing that. Overpopulation, Pollution, Warfare, Global Warming, and other global issues are destroying our planet at an alarming rate. Space travel presents a way to deal will these problems. For example, if you take a closer look at what NASA does, you will realize that NASA is not just about rockets and space, according to the article, Top 5 Ways That NASA Helps the Environment by Julia Layton for HowStuffWorks, the author states “NASA does more in the Earth-sciences arena than many of us realize. And these days, that means environmental science.
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 accomplish this feat. NASA’s research and innovation looked promising but it came at a cost. Money, resources, and spacecraft accidents most famously Apollo 13 all hindered NASA’s research. In the 21st century the debate between funding for NASA is at its peak since the birth of the organization in 1958 especially when there are numerous problems throughout the world. Is the money spent on space exploration worth the advantages and advances it contributes to society?
The main argument against space travel says that the money used could be better put on other matters. This is in fact very untrue. Looking at NASA’s 2015 budget of 17.5 billion, it may seem like a lot, until you realize that the US military budget for 2014 was 581 billion dollars (5). Furthermore, it was estimated that each dollar in NASA’s budget was equivalent to 8 – 10 dollars of economic benefit (6). If an organization can bring about economic value at 10 folds the original budget, it would be logical to continue funding it, if not increasing the funds. Even if we disregard the economic value of the space program, the achievements of NASA speak for themselves. The ability to send humans onto the moon, survey the surface of Mars using the Curiosity rover, and even finding water on a foreign planet is astounding. Even looking at the International Space Station, it seems abundantly clear that the space program brings more unanimity between nations than the military will ever hope to achieve, while the military has a budget 33 times that of the space program. Hence, blaming the costs of the space program is an absurd argument, as the budget that is put into the program is used very
In fact, in an Msnbc, meet the press edition, with Michael Griffin, NASA Administrator and MODERATOR Tim Russert it is said that 60% of America said no to space exploration funding. With the lack of interest within the American public it should be clear to let those who seek interest in the space research pursue their own desires for knowledge in the form of private funds.” http://www.nbcnews.com/id/8714260/#.WjXlHbT81Bw Fact or reason 3: “The ultimate goal for NASA is too seek a future home for earth and hopefully coloze this area. With this in mind what better way to colonise space than to leave it to the private industries to develop the space tourism markets further develop means of transportation?