This essay is being written to prove that NASA spending has a negative impact on American society. 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. NASA harms the economy. Since NASA’s beginning in 1958, NASA has spent over 500 billion dollars(NFAA). To put that in perspective, if you sum total the amount NASA has spent SINCE the moon landing, it is enough money to purchase the entire continent of Oceania AND end world hunger for over 6 years. NASA is constantly disrupting the treasury of the United States by constantly spending money that his not their own which raises taxes. NASA is constantly over budget and behind schedule. So how badly is NASA being run? A U.S. Government report states that more than 50% of NASA’s programs over-budget and past-deadline; and some of the others having no deadline at all. The Government Accountability Office looked at 18 separate NASA programs, finding that 5 are running without any deadline at all! In total, there are only 3 that have made their deadline, all of which are over budget. The Mars Science Laboratory is running 25 months behind schedule and 26% over original cost estimates, and the Glory climate satellite is an incredible 53% over budget! (nasa). This constant over-budgeting by NASA results in higher taxes on the American people. Many of NASA’s programs have had to be cancelled due to vast corruption. 9 billion dollars was thrown away due to corrupt management and spending on the Constellation program (NFAA). The corruption within the United States Congress dire... ... middle of paper ... ...ther with one another before we even think about branching out into space. For example, the United States must learn how to communicate and fix their relationship with Russia before trying to reach out and conquer space. We must fix the problems we have in our homeland and home world, before creating new ones on a different planet. 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.
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.
An article on NASA's website shows me a testimony by NASA Administrator, Dan Goldin, who spoke before the U.S. House of Representative's subcommittee after the NASA budget received an eleven-percent reduction in funding. Mr. Goldin feels outrage that the space program would be expected to function on such restricted funding. Goldin states this kind of cut would "gut space exploration." With closures of NASA centers and significant layoffs, Mr. Goldin predicts this budget cut will affect employee morale. Mr. Goldin poignantly states, "Perhaps most sadly, we will lose the opportunity to inspire a future generation of children." (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/Goldin/2000/testimony) Goldin's issue is the reduction in his budget. In my experience with budgets, reduction of the budget means, Goldin and his team are going to have to cut costs. Reading between the lines of his argument, I presume the eleven-percent are costs he does not want to cut. It must be his beli...
Eliminating federal funding for NASA is short sighted and risky. The benefits derived from NASA’s work over the last five decades have been tremendous. Future generations will continue to benefit from the many discoveries led by NASA and their space research. The risks of reducing funding for NASA and to cease its existance are great, as it is unknown what the next discovery will be and its impact on the USA and the world. The true potential of space research can only realized by continuing to fund NASA.
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.
There are many opinions on if the Government should continue funding NASA or not. My belief is that yes, the Government should continue funding Nasa for many important reasons. One of those being is that NASA’S technology helps save new mothers, We use their inventions in our everyday lives and, NASA is far more advanced than other private companies.
On October 1, 1958 the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was created because of the competition to get to space between the Soviet Union and the United States during the Cold War. Today, the organization still runs in locations across the U.S. providing research and technological advances. The budget of NASA has varied throughout the years due to fluctuation in funding from private companies and the government. However, NASA should not receive budget cuts because of the technologies it has created that we use now, NASA’s plans for the future, and currently it does not receive as much government funding when compared with the positive economic impacts.
Such as poverty and health-care, but in fact NASA 's funding is only a half a cent on the dollar, and the U.S. spends most of its deficit on war and other barbaric acts. About 2.9 trillion dollars are used on health-care alone (Millman). The U.S. government spends a mere $17.7 billion on NASA and spends more than 36 times that on defense $647 billion, with nearly $20 billion alone in 2011 spent on air conditioning tents. Since NASA’s Cold War glory days, the budget has gone from 4.41% of the total budget in 1966, to less than 0.45% today, its lowest ever. NASA helped to usher in a promising new future in the 1960s and it was rewarded with a rapidly-eroding budget. The U.S. should invest more money in NASA and less on unnecessary health care and military. The budget cuts are affecting our technology development. Evidently, Increasing NASA 's to 1 percent of the federal budget will not hurt the economy. But instead it would benefit it by creating jobs here on earth, especially for the next generation of American scientists and engineers. 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
The National Academies Press (2012) NASA’s Strategic Direction and Need for a National Consensus retrieved from http//www.npa.edu/openbook.php?record_id=18248&
I think we should continue to use government money to fund NASA and it’s space exploration. In my opinion I think that we should continue to use government money because it is good to find and learn a new thing about ours solar system. Learning new thing can help and change are future in a better way.
In 2012, under the Obama administration the total budget was $3.73 trillion and $18.7 billion of that money went to NASA. Now this may sound like a considerable amount of money, but if the U.S budget were to be represented by one hundred pennies, then merely half of a penny would be given to NASA. Since landing the first man on the moon, NASA’s budget has gone down from 4.5% of the Federal budget to 0.5%. According to a survey, most Americans think that NASA receives 20% - 25% of the U.S yearly budget. In reality, they only receive 0.5% of the budget. It is amazing to see how the space agency has benefited people on Earth with this budget, but imagine the possibilities if they received a larger portion of the budget each year. How close would we be to colonizing Mars, or what other types of technology would have been
Think about NASA and all it's done for the better of humanity. Without it being funded, there is hardly anything to fuel any future interest in the space program nor would our world learn anymore about itself. NASA needs this funding to stay alive, to answer the world’s questions, and show everyone how it important it is to keep NASA
NASA is not a bad program at all. There are many things that the program has integrated from their research that people now use on an everyday basis. Many people golf, and the dimple design on the golfballs are from NASA (Gauthier). With the increasing number of memory foam mattresses being sold, that is another way that NASA has come into the lives of the American citizen.
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?
Clearly, the long list of inventions and innovations just seen disproves the claim that NASA and space technologies have no positive impact on American lives is utterly false, but what about the money? Finally, NASA should continue to receive funding (and actually receive more) because of its undeniable positive affect on our economy. The stimulation of private industry, job creation, and an incredible economic payback makes NASA worth every penny and more. NASA helps private companies and encourages economic growth by doing most of the research and testing for private industry. NASA creates high quality products because of the harsh demands of space, this means that private companies don 't have to spend as much money on research and development and can just do what they do best-production (The American Space Program –Why Invest in It?). NASA employed about 15 times the number of workers as the largest employer in Connecticut, United Technologies Corporation. Although the largest 25 companies in Connecticut collectively employ about 178,152 people, NASA still employed about 412,700 employees in it’s golden age. That is about 2.3 times as many people working for NASA as all top 25 employers combined. Experts estimate that “for every dollar the U.S. spends on Research and Development in
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