Salazar 1

Kathleen Salazar
Mr. Davis
Government 1
October 23, 2015
MCRP - National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Fund
Space, the final frontier. The future of the human race rests on understanding and
operating in that environment and yet why is it that the U.S. does not consider it as critical to the
everyday lives of citizens as other important items such as military spending. One cannot
disagree that science is vital to not only our government and country, but to the entire world.
However, major cutbacks over the past years shifted resources in the scientific community
causing a reduction in the funds needed to support vital NASA missions. The NASA space and
science program is the countrys primary source of information and development center for space
travel and exploration. From it, we are also provided with new technologies produced as well as
vital information about life outside of our planet. Sadly, it is not funded to the extent necessary
the United States government does not think that NASA is worth more than about 0.4% of the

federal budget (McBrien). In order to adequately support NASA and its research and programs,
the funding for this government organization must be increased to at least one percent of the
national government budget and should not be subject to cuts in times of economic downturn.
NASA provides economic wealth, as well as vital resources to our nation, and cutbacks on
military spending would provide more economic relief to the nation. Finally, in the interest of
safety, NASA must be the sole organization engaged in providing space exploration trips.
The most basic problem which would be solved by regular, consistent funding of the
NASA space and science program is that the program can invest in long term planning which
results in better advancements. This will actually enhance the U.S. economy because of the

Salazar 2
boost that occurs from job creation and spinoff technologies. As noted by one study, NASA
provides more money to the economy than the government spends on it (McBrien). In
particular, significant numbers of jobs involve scientists, engineers and high tech workers that
develop technologies looking toward the future. For instance as one study noted nationally,
NASA Ames supports more than 8,400 jobs and generates $1.3 billion in annual economic
activity (Hanner). In addition to the Ames program, one of NASAs divisions, NASA includes
dozens of other areas that contribute to jobs and creating revenue. However, jobs arent the only
factor that brings in money for the national government. A study detailing the economic benefits
of the spinoff technologies conceived from NASA determined an even greater impact. This
pilot study of fifteen companies, using a very conservative measurement technique, found a large
return to companies that have successfully commercialized NASA life sciences spin-off
products. Value-added benefits totaled over $1.5 billion and a NASA research and development
total investment in these 15 technologies of $64 million was found to stimulate an additional
$200 million in private research and development (Result). Not only do NASA projects provide
an economic boost to government coffers, but they also provide new technologies developed by
top scientists. If the government were to invest a portion of money generated from those
technologies toward increasing NASAs budget, the return on investment would be even greater
due to additional technological development potential.
While putting money back into the government is important, the research and
development that NASA provides through spinoff technologies and important discoveries is just
as crucial to the wellbeing of the nation. Space exploration represents a relatively small
expenditure that brings positive real world impacts in the form of cutting edge research, crucial
data on weather and climate change, thousands of jobs and more than a few spinoff

Salazar 3
technologies (Levinger). NASA spinoff technologies provide more than wealth to the nation and
much more than just consumer products. For instance, a major advancement from NASA
programs is the expansion of the uses of satellites. The systems play a crucial role in providing
global communications, precision navigation, early warning of missile launches and potential
military aggression, signals intelligence, and near real-time imagery to U.S. forces to support the
war on terrorism and other continuing operations (What). This means that satellite systems not
only have scientific benefit when used for determining weather patterns but they also help the
military with critical information on the battlefield. Without such technology, U.S. forces would
not be able to maintain the many advantages they currently have when engaged in conflicts.
Another major development is the focus on the Mars space program. Just recently a major
breakthrough has occurred in this area. New findings from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance
Orbiter (MRO) provide the strongest evidence yet that liquid water flows intermittently on
present-day Mars (NASA). The possibility of a life sustaining environment on Mars is a game
changer for both the U.S. and the world in considering what future generations may have
available in the event that the world becomes uninhabitable or that more living space is needed
for an expanding population. Without dedicated and guaranteed funding NASA will be unable to
continue to even meet the goal of actually getting people to Mars itself.
With the budget already in need of being trimmed, the question remains where will the
cuts come from? The obvious choice is that cutting back on military spending would make it
possible to spend one percent of the budget on NASA. It is no secret that military spending is a
large part of the U.S. government budget. But even experts agree that, military spending, is one
of the more practical places to cut in terms of saving money (Segura). Over the years, the
budget for this particular area increased exponentially. The militarys budget could be reduced in

Salazar 4
such a way to maintain its strength while significantly benefiting other organizations such as
NASA. The U.S. defense budget is $612 billion. Despite sequestration and other spending cuts,
the United States spends more money on defense than the next ten highest spending countries
combined (Bender). It is clear that cutting back on our spending will in no way make our
country weaker than others considering the huge gap between the spending in other countries.
Safety is not an issue. What further emphasizes this point is that the military budget has become
much more politicalized than in the past. Some politicians use the issue of a larger military
budget to win votes instead of weighing the benefits of spreading funding out among other
important agencies. For instance, as one politician stated, My concerns are more those kinds of
issues, you know, some kind of balance here. I believe in a strong military, but I also believe that
we need to have a strong country. (Parker). This issue of distributing wealth among other
programs has been recognized by Congress and needs to be taken into account for programs such
as NASA to be funded to meet its important missions.
The two most common arguments as to why NASA should have its funding cut, or at
least decreased, are first, the fact that there are private space programs that could provide the
same research and be charged to the government, and second, that the research already
completed in the program has not achieved any advancements that show real promise. Currently,
there are many different companies in the marketplace, such as Space X, that are privately owned
organizations involved in space exploration and projects similar to NASA. It is argued that by
letting these private companies do the research on their own, could save a good deal of money,
thereby decreasing how much funding NASA would need. Also, there is a strong argument for
reducing NASA programs due to the perception that in the daily lives of citizens, its missions are
not vital. With this view of the low importance as a federal program many policymakers think

Salazar 5
that private companies should step in. However, it takes the full force of a government agency to
be in charge of a space program that is safe. SpaceX admits the riskiness of its endeavor. The
current flight has already been delayed several times because of problems with the flight
software (Urry). These private Space companies come with a much higher risk of danger as
well as inexperienced organizations dealing with the unpredictability of space. The consequences
for someone taking on the risk of space and possibly interfering with satellites or other
governmentally-owned property is also a risk and could potentially cost more money by
interrupting space programs already in place. NASA should be the primary source, and only
source, allowed in space to represent our country; however they should work with these private
companies for commercial use, as well as, help with developing new technology for future space
travel. With regard to the criticism that no important advancements have been made, this is
simply not true. NASA has been at the forefront for the U.S. in building satellites, space shuttles,
space stations and ground control centers. Much like the issue of safety for astronauts in
exploring space the NASA program exploring the possibility of missions to other planets
provides safety for our nation and the entire world. As stated by Stephen Hawking, Life on
Earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as global warming, a
genetically-engineered virus or other dangers. I think the human race has no future if it doesnt
go into space (Barbree,306). These efforts will be critical in the event of a disaster such as an
asteroid hitting earth or the earth becoming inhabitable for some other reason such a global
warming. As another writer noted, Humans should not rely solely on earth for their long term
future. The potential damage done by an asteroid or comet that collides with the
Earth could range from the impact of an atomic bomb to the complete destruction of all life on

Salazar 6
the planet (Jones). Space exploration by NASA could be the difference between life and death
of many on Earth.
NASA should be provided with at least one percent of the U.S. governments budget
because it creates wealth within the economy, provides new technology and discoveries, and its
efforts in space exploration provide lifesaving technologies. The importance of space
exploration extends beyond the benefits it will bring in the present. The information gained could
create scientific revolutions within the larger scale of science itself and a much larger
understanding of the world as well as providing more technological benefits to society. This is
why our government needs to take charge and increase its focus on the real life saving programs
of tomorrow.

Salazar 7
Works Cited
Books:
Barbree, Jay. Live from Cape Canaveral: Covering the Space Race, from Sputnik to Today. New
York: Smithsonian/Collins, 2007. Print.
Electronic Sources:
Bender, Jeremy. The 11 Most Powerful Militaries In The World. Business Insider. N.p., Apr.
23, 2014. Web. 22 Oct 2015.
http://www.businessinsider.com/11-most-powerful-militaries-in-the-world-2014-4
Hanner, Karen. NASA Stimulates Economy With Jobs, Innovation. NASA News. NASA,
N.p., 10 May 2010. Web. 22 Sep 2015.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/10-38AR.htm
Levinger, Josh. Should We Cut NASA Funding? The Tech. Should We Cut NASA Funding?
The Tech. N.p., 09Apr. 2010. Web. 17 Sept. 2015http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/nasacp.html
Jones, Tony. Is Space Exploration A Waste of Money? BBC News. BBC, 09 Dec. 1999. Web.
24 Sept. 2015.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/552655.stm
McBrien, Michael. Government Funding For NASA Should Not Be Reduced Yet. NU Writing.
N.p., n.d. Web 17 Sep 2015.
http://www.northeastern.edu/nuwriting/a-case-for-nasa/
NASA. NASA. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
https://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/what_does_nasa_do.html
Parker, Ashley. House Passes Military Bill After Fight on Budget Cuts. New York Times. N.p.,
15 May 2015. Web. 22 Oct 2015.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/16/us/house-passes-military-spending-bill-after-fight-oncuts.html?_r=0
"Result Filters." National Center for Biotechnology Information. U.S. National Library of
Medicine, N.p., 27 Dec. 2002. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14983842
Segura, Liliana. "Benefits of a Slimmer Pentagon." THROWAWAY PEOPLE. N.p., n.d. Web. 18
Oct. 2015.
http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/magazine___journal_articl
es/Pollin--Garrett-Peltier--Military_Spending-Jobs_for_Nation_5-28-12.pdf
Urry, Meg. Private Space Travel: A New Era Begins? CNN.com CNN. Cable News Network,
22 May 2012. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/18/opinion/urry-private-space-launch/

Salazar 8
What We Do. National Reconnaissance Office. National Reconnaissance Office, N.p., n.d.
Web. 18 Oct. 2015.
http://www.nro.gov/about/nro/what.html