America went to the moon with big pockets, putting forth one of the biggest and most successful investments the US government has had yet. America walked on the moon the day of July 20th 1969, we know how we got there, but how much did it cost to arrive? John F Kennedy(JFK) proposed NASA reach the moon with a total budget of “$109 billion dollars in 2010 dollars”(Lafleur 2010). These numbers include only the total cost of the Apollo program itself, not including any other missions or projects NASA had at the time. It was a colossal amount of money to pull from where? JFK described this in his 1962 speech as “More than 50 cents a week for every man, women, and child in the united states”(Kennedy 1962). Today we stand by the most advanced engineers, …show more content…
From 2012 the budget was sitting dry at $17.8 billion dollars, as of October 2017 the budget will be announced at $19.5 billion dollars. Its definitely not the $109 billion dollars we wish to see for NASA but any addition is a great one. “The extra money means NASA has a better chance of pulling off its primary missions on schedule”(Verge 2016). The new budget also lead to a big jump for astronauts, considering how much money goes to Russian Soyuz rockets to send them into space. Roughly $80 million dollars per seat, but new budget means US rockets once again, “NASA scores a big win for its commercial crew program” (Verge 2016). Increasing budgets has also lead to great celebration due to the planned launch dates for rockets. On occasion rocket launches would move forward and eventually fall off the calendar due to constant delay, eventually leading a rocket to never make the build. NASA administrator Charles Bolden has argued frequently, “The first launches would ultimately slip into 2018 without enough money”(Verge 2016). Good news is NASA’s other major projects get big boosts as well. The Space Launch System (SLS) the expandable rocket NASA is constructing to take astronauts into interstellar space and on to Mars, it will be receiving “$2 billion, which is $300 million more than the program received for 2015”(Verge 2015). As NASA described this all “Its mostly good news all around”, Another great leap is the legislation set aside $175 million for a mission beyond Mars. Jupiters icy moon Europa would be the next stop in the solar system, “leading candidate for finding extraterrestrial life”(Verge 2016). The best part about this all, the bill directs NASA to do this all no later than
Congress authorized the Constellation program in 2005, assigning it multiple goals, such as completing the International Space Station, developing a replacement vehicle for the space shuttle, as well as promoting international and commercial participation in space exploration for a return to the Moon no later than 2020 (Connolly 2). Despite Congress's good intentions in 2005, the future of the Constellation program is hanging by a thread. President Obama stated in his 2011 budget proposal that "[the nation's] fiscal situation remains unacceptable", and in his plan, the Constellation program has been cut from NASA's budget entirely, regarded as an unnecessary expense. This plan would allow more money to be used for other things, but it also has several undesirable consequences. Without the Constellation program, some 7,000 jobs at Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral would be lost. Also, the $9.1 billion that NASA has already invested in the program would be wasted.
Early on in the race, the USSR was very successful. In 1957, the Soviets launched Sputnik, which triggered the start of the space race (John F. Kennedy). The United States began to scramble, trying to catch up with the Soviets. However, soon after, the Soviet Union completed another huge success. They sent the first man to orbit Earth (John F. Kennedy). In 1961 the USSR’s Yuri Gagarin became the first human to ever orbit the Earth (John F. Kennedy). The United States was still unsuccessful and beginning to look weak. After that, America got serious. On May 25, 1961, President Kennedy asked Congress for around eight billion dollars to build up the space program over the next five years (John F. Kennedy). The president declared, “This nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to Earth” (John F. Kennedy).
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.
The government gives NASA $16 billion every year. That is only 7% of the federal government’s budget, which is $2.8 trillion. To put it in perspective, for every $2800 of federal government budget, $16 goes to NASA. With more funding, NASA could launch more telescopes, explore other galaxies, and pinpoint exactly where an asteroid will strike. Citizens of the United States of America believe that a huge percent of their taxes go to NASA. The truth is, only one percent of taxes go to scientific research, and half of that goes to NASA. For someone earning $100,000 a year, $1000 goes to scientific research, with half of that going to NASA, only $500. The benefits of continuing to fund NASA, far outweight the costs. Michael Massimino, one of NASA’s astronauts says it best, “you have bills to pay, but you always want to put something away for your kids college fund. NASA is like a college fund, we are the future” (Massimino 1).
The attempt to put the first man on the moon was a waste of government resources because of the extensive amounts of money used by putting the country into even more debt. After the United States got out of WWI and WWII, we were in debt around 257 trillion dollars ("The Space Race and the Cold War."). As the United States got more and more into the Cold War, the debt went up. The Apollo program alone, costed more than twenty- ...
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.
“NASA’s budget continues to be reduced from almost $18.5 billion in 2011 to $17.8 billion in 2012” (McBrien). With NASA expecting more budget cuts in the future, something
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.
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard" (Kennedy). When John F. Kennedy said these famous words, he set the stage for one of the greatest accomplishments the United States of America has ever made. Over the course of that decade, the space race would be in full swing; a universal goal would unite the nation to achieve the dream of sending a man to the moon and safely back to earth. Through human determination, the United States made enough scientific breakthroughs to alter events back on planet earth. In one decade, this nation was able to prove that the sky is no longer the limit. How was the United States able to effectively accomplish such a colossal task, and what was the global significance at the time?
Going to the moon doesn’t happen in a second, you need some preparation and a plan for the whole thing. The whole mission costed 25.4 billion dollars which is equivalent to 161.5 billion dollars today. That money was used to complete experiments and of course buy the equipment for the rocket ship. 10 years before the mission NASA was experimenting with new technology. 52 experiments took place for only 10 missions. In every single relatively big thing you do you need a plan, but you need a plan to complete a every goal.
During his inaugural address in 1961, President John F. Kennedy first promoted his plan to expand the United State’s space exploration program. A few months later, in May of the same year, Kennedy formally announced his desire to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade to a special joint session of the United States (U.S.) Congress. Then in September, Kennedy continued his promotion of this slowly forming goal at Rice University in Houston, Texas, where he spoke to a mixed group of professors, state leaders, scientists, and students of all ages. The main purpose of Kennedy’s speech was to rally more support for the growing National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) program in Houston, as well as its rapidly expanding budget,
We chose to go to the moon for many reasons –for science, technological advancement, even for the exploration of new worlds –yet why have we not continued to do so? Today in the year 2014, government funding for NASA has been cut exponentially since the days of Apollo. The United States no longer has the need for the continuation of manned space travel. The Cold War is long over along with the Soviet Union, which defeats the need to continue to exceed Russia with our technology. The purpose behind why the United States chose to go to the moon was not for the pure sake of science, but for the interests of the Cold War.
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 question isn’t whether NASA should get more money, the question is what the company would do with it once the budget is increased. According to Leonard Richards, Laura Riggan, and Preston Martin, “it’s alright to fund NASA as long as the company is doing something worthwhile with the money.” Going to the moon and Mars is excellent, but that’s already been done. Time for something else. If NASA’s budget was increased, it could be
...fe, with the inventions they have produced and by learning what they have done I think the budget should be increased. I am a firm believer in that science holds the answers to our problems in the world. If NASA and other scientific organization continue their research I think issues and problems in the world will fix themselves. For example, if NASA or another organization finds a way to effectively convert salt contaminated water to fresh drinkable water, our problem regarding water shortage will subside. Maybe NASA found a way to have cars or some other found of transportation run on soil, sand, or grass (very unlikely but it is possible). NASA would need workers to build these devices, which would create many low education jobs across the country. Continued funding for NASA and other scientific organizations will fix the social injustice problems of the world.