Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

An Informative Essay
Alex Young
James Madison University

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Abstract
In the past fifteen or so years, the U.S. has continually neglected the
space program, and this has been represented in the reduced funding
in the more recent years. Through research, teams associated, but
also not associated with NASA, have found that an increase in funding
could yield groundbreaking results. Yet, the government is not keen on
funding some of these programs, such as attempts at expanding the
distance mankind has traveled in the universe, along with bringing
back rock samples from Mars in order to better understand the
potential of survivability of life on other planets. NASA has done
substantial research on potential findings with an increased budget,
but the government has an expectation of discoveries as
groundbreaking as getting a man on the moon. The reduced funding,
and overall fall into obscurity of the space program is causing a loss of
identity for America, and has more meaning than just missing out on
discoveries.

Keywords: funding, universe, survivability, life, space travel

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Space is the ultimate source of unknown, a never-ending entity
that mankind has barely scratched the surface of.

Yet the United

States is currently trying to limit further exploration that could lead to

prolonged existence, and even increased knowledge about some of the
most prominent questions about humans and life. The debate as to
whether or not the United States should decrease funding for NASA is
ongoing, and has seen relevance for upwards of five years. The topic
has

significant

prevalence,

as

removal

of

the

program

would

dishearten many Americans, and could have significant symbolism for

the direction the country is headed towards. In essence, NASA has not
made any major discoveries, and the United States government is not
content with the amount of money that is being set aside for the
program.

The expectation is that NASA will continue to make

groundbreaking discoveries with the same budget, but research has

found that a static budget will not create new discoveries. Essentially,
cutting the budget would result in an even smaller rate of production
from the program, but an increase in funding could yield incredible
results. Many people are split on this topic. Most people have been

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

oblivious to this debate, and in this state of ignorance, the argument
continues to grow. Although there may not be any initial relevance to
the everyday citizen, when pondered, there is critical importance to
every human on this planet. The time of the human race on Earth is
finite, and the way in which we as a species are behaving and
consuming, the demise of our environment is rapidly approaching.
With this in mind, it is critical that NASA receives increased funding; to
either reverse the effects of pollution, or to seek other means of
habitation. The budget cuts will directly affect the productivity of the
program, in all aspects.
Scott Brundage makes a troubling case for what budget cuts will
do to NASA, along with what they already have done. In his article
titled NASAs planetary science program endangered by budget cuts,
he cites several problems that the human race will undoubtedly
encounter in the future if NASA suffers budget cuts. Several projects
relating to Mars have already been cut as a result of insignificant
funding. In particular, the retrieval of rocks from Mars could result in
remarkable new finds, but this prospect has encountered many
complications as a result of the government being unwilling to
cooperate with NASA (Brundage 2012).
In his article, NASA facing new space science cuts, Jeff Foust
takes a more optimistic stance, while still having an overall tone of

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

seriousness. For example, this source is much more positive about the
future, and directly cites some NASA employees who dont take so
much of a pessimistic view towards the budget issues. This is also a
more recent article, which includes new budget proposals that would
yield results that include a trip to Europa along with more expenditures
relating to Mars (Foust 2014).
Steven Markovichs article titled Space exploration and U.S.
competitiveness takes an interesting stance on the idea of budget cuts.
The article acknowledges the severity of the situation regarding how
little attention is paid to the brilliant program. But instead of analyzing
the cuts, he proposes other means of raising money and increasing the
budget for the program. In particular, the concept of commercial
flights to the ISS (International Space Station) was suggested
(Markovich 2014).
It has been iterated several times throughout this paper, but the
most undeniable common ground throughout research, is that reduced
funding for NASA would undoubtedly result in negative consequences.
All three sources state in some way, that reducing funding would affect
the nation in ways such as failed trips to areas of space, potential
disaster in the far future for the human race, and the loss of identity
for the U.S. Brundage gave some perspective into what the budget
cuts would specifically affect, by stating It could stretch farther still,

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

with robots spying down on bizarre moons that might harbor alien life
or on the little-understood outermost planets. An even more novel
campaign would ferry Martian rocks back to Earth for analysis. NASA
had been on track to begin such an ambitious project, but alas,
political maneuvering recently forced the space agency to scrap its
plans (Brundage 2012). This is but a few of the projects and negative
results of budget cuts to NASA.
Mars is the most renowned planet in terms of the strides the U.S.
has made in order to study it and research its capability of habitation.
From the potential of water and life, to even a possible new home for
mankind, it is truly no surprise that all three articles had agreed that a
cut in funding would cause a great loss of progress to be suffered in
terms of Mars. Plans mentioned primarily consist of a trip to Mars in
2020, and an eventual manned crew going to the new planet. But it is
agreed that without the necessary funding, most of the work in the
past twenty or so years will have been pointless. The problem is that
the government would like their expenditures to yield results
immediately, when in reality, these discoveries take time and patience.
Foust brings up one of the impossible decisions which NASA is currently
facing when he states Some scientists fear current budgets could
force NASA to decide which of two large missions, the Curiosity Mars
rover and Cassini Saturn orbiter, it can afford to keep operating
(Foust 2014). The fact that the space program is given this ultimatum,

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

and one of two projects will be scrapped does not bode well for the
programs future.
One of the more intimidating notions within all of the articles is
that the lack of prioritization towards the space program, and a higher
regard for national defense, is essentially representative of the country
losing track of what made it great. The United States seems to care
more about the economy and the idea of being the most powerful
entity in the world rather than promote adventure, and the idea of
striving for the greatest achievable good that has been the goal of this
country ever since its inception. Space exploration is expensive, but it
is a relatively minor line item in the U.S. budget. NASA's spending
peaked at almost 4.5 percent of the federal budget in fiscal year (FY)
1966, declined to 1 percent by 1975, and has gradually fallen to about
half a percent in recent years (Markovich 2014). Markovich provided
statistics to further solidify how little an increase in the budget for
NASA would affect the countrys current expenditures.
Brundage and Fousts articles have strong pessimism towards
the budget cuts, and dont really give options or means of recovery.
Meanwhile, Markovich suggests that commercializing trips to the space
station could yield profit that could be useful in increasing the budget,
and potentially assisting in other endeavors of the space program.
Virgin Galactic had collected more than seven hundred deposits for
planned suborbital flights, priced at $250,000 per seat, before a fatal

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

crash during an October 31 test flight (Markovich 2014). While the
concept is intimidating because the idea of commercial flights is still
quite foreign, it is a new proposal that could eventually lead to a new
industry.
Brundage and Markovich reference the Mars missions in order to
have some degree of relevance for the audience, but the Foust decides
to bring up Europa and Pluto, two extremely ambitious projects. Foust
definitely has a higher degree of optimism than the other two. The
outcome of those legislative efforts will have little effect on SETI, but
they might give scientists some hope of finding support for more
space science inside the Beltway (Foust 2014). Foust took a stance
that is not commonly seen by articles on this particular subject, and
delves into potential solutions, and some of the more optimistic
members of congress along with the strides they are making to raise
the budget for NASA.
Brundage makes a strong case for opposing budget cuts, but it
does lack in the department of depth. Had the article been longer, it
would have more gravity and would possibly do a better job of
convincing the audience. At the same time, increased length could
have reduced how interesting it was. But in my opinion, I would have
preferred for the article to be longer so that more information could be
provided to support the claim.

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Foust differs from the other sources in its optimism. It is actually
quite refreshing to finds something that instead focuses on what good
is still potentially going to come from the space program, rather than
simply focusing on all of the negatives that could potentially come
from the reduction. This optimism does seem a bit over the top at
times though, and projects such as Pluto seem a bit farfetched. I would
have preferred if there was a more realist approach rather than the
romantic approach.
Markovich does a unique job compared to the other two sources,
in that he suggests alternatives to simply arguing about the budget
cuts. The concepts of the commercial flights is a potential method for
NASA to dig itself out of a hole, but the idea also hinders the program
in that it commercializes what should be a government endeavor. A lot
of people will simply ignore the idea of commercializing flights, but I
think that concepts such as this one contain the ingenuity that will
return our country to its former state.
I knew that NASA was suffering lately, and that the space
program had not really been making any groundbreaking discoveries,
but I did not know how severely it was being neglected. I did not know
that the government was simply allowing the program to steadily lose
its identity, and lose a lot of what makes America fulfill its identity. I
have most definitely become more supportive of NASA, and I believe

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

that if we let the space program go to the wayside, then it will have a
negative mark on our country, and we will lose that sense of adventure
that we had first encountered in the late 50s. The idea that the
government would allow this to occur so that it can pursue a more
stable economy, and prioritize endeavors in the East deeply disturbs
me. With this in mind, I adamantly support an increase in funding for
the space program.

Double click the icon to access the podcast.

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Storyboard
Images (general or specific, location if known): None
Design (background color, font style, special effects): None
Sounds (music, sound effects): None
Narration/Text (the actual text that you would record to accompany
this slide): The first article by Scott Brundage primarily focuses on the
cancellation of Mars b[rpjects, which have been relevant for quite some
time.

Images (general or specific, location if known):

Design (background color, font style, special effects):
Sounds (music, sound effects):
Narration/Text (the actual text that you would record to accompany
this slide: For the second article, Jeff Foust takes an extremely
optimistic stance towards the problem which was refreshing, since
most focused on the negatives.

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Images (general or specific, location if known):
Design (background color, font style, special effects):
Sounds (music, sound effects):
Narration/Text (the actual text that you would record to accompany
this slide): The third article, which was my personal favorite, talked
about commercializing flights for more money.

Images (general or specific, location if known):

Design (background color, font style, special effects):
Sounds (music, sound effects):
Narration/Text (the actual text that you would record to accompany this slide):
The fourth article by Jason Plautz talks about how NASA is too
concerned with climate change, and that is why they received budget
cuts.

Images (general or specific, location if known):

Design (background color, font style, special effects):
Sounds (music, sound effects):
Narration/Text (the actual text that you would record to accompany this slide):
Finally, Ian Angus delved into what the reduction in funding actually
means, in terms of the outcomes like wasted projects.

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

References
Brundage, S. (2012, July 1). NASA's planetary science program
endangered by budget cuts. Retrieved March 09, 2016,
fromhttp://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-planetaryscience-program-endangered-buget-cuts/

Foust, J. for National Geographic PUBLISHED May 31, 2014. (2014, May
31). NASA facing new space science cuts. Retrieved March 09,
2016,
fromhttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530space-politics-planetary-science-funding-exploration/

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?

Markovich, S. J. (2014, December 5). Space exploration and U.S.
competitiveness. Retrieved March 09, 2016,
from http://www.cfr.org/space/space-exploration-uscompetitiveness/p31959

Should the U.S. Government Reduce Funding for NASA?