Eisner1

Jonathan Eisner ENC-1102 Lit Review Final Draft The Current and Future Funding of N.A.S.A. There is a current debate occurring in the United States right now that attracts opinions from all sides of society. This debate happens to be the one about what should happen to the funding of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This debate has been going on for well over a decade, but has been receiving increasing amounts of attention over the past few years. This is largely due in part to the Executives proposed budget for N.A.S.A. that would cut funding slightly and look to the private space industry for help. Along with this, the Space Shuttle program has also been ended. These three points are the main reason that the plan has led to increased attention to the debate. This debate sees attention not only from politicians or those affiliated with N.A.S.A, but also from economists, scientists, and the everyday citizen. Some see N.A.S.A. as being beneficial; some see it as being something we as humans need; some see it is being useless; and some see it as being a hindrance to the progress of this country. This is a vital debate for the future of the country. With it being inevitable that humans will eventually look to space and space exploration for various reasons, the decisions made today about the funding of N.A.S.A. could have significant impact on the future of this country or even the world. Collecting data and information on this topic is one of various important methods that can help contribute to the overall consensus when it comes to what should occur with N.A.S.A. funding. With a topic so influential and vital to the future, it is important to analyze every aspect of it.

Eisner2

Wanting N.A.S.A. Many people see the funding of N.A.S.A. to have a direct correlation with various kinds of benefits, whether they are economic, technological, or cultural. Denise Chow covers Neil DeGrasse Tysons view that, with every dollar of funding N.A.S.A. receives, it puts much more money back into the economy. Furthermore, Tyson states that it also helps to inspire the youth to aspire to pursue difficult, but important, careers, such as engineering and astronomy. (Chow, Tyson). These types of benefits can be thought of as having a domino and exponential effect. For example, as more people are inspired to become engineers and astronomers, we would be achieving more in those fields. This could help N.A.S.A. accomplish more, and then repeating the process of inspiring more people to pursue fields in astronomy and engineering. Ryan McClain and Steven Howard Friedman want N.A.S.A. to be funded because they believe that the private space industry is significantly less efficient than N.A.S.A. McClain points out that entering low earth orbit has repeatedly been done by government space programs and has been proven to be as safe as space exploration can get. A private company would never expand beyond this region without serious incentives, because the risk would outweigh the potential reward. (McClain). Friedman thinks that the most the private space industry will do is put humans into low Earth orbit, rather than on moons and planets. (Friedman). They have similar views that the private space industry could, in theory, accomplish things. However, in application, they believe that it would restrict itself to minimal-risk endeavors that would lead to very few accomplishments, thus making N.A.S.A. a much more suitable option. Need N.A.S.A. A very common point brought up by people supporting N.A.S.A. is that human civilization needs N.A.S.A. to survive in the future. Jesus Diaz and Josh Levinger both support

Eisner3

the funding of N.A.S.A. because they believe that the Earth wont always be habitable, and N.A.S.A. is the only way that we can achieve space exploration to the degree that we can make it to and live on other worlds. (Diaz, Levinger). Aaron Endr, Richard Galant, Bill Nye, and DJ Pangburn all mention the possibility of an asteroid impacting the Earth and state that funding N.A.S.A. could help it to develop technology to redirect the asteroid or technology to help us leave the planet if we have to. (Endr, Galant, Nye, Pangburn). They do not mention going to the private space industry for achieving the development of this technology. This is because they are implying that the private space industry is not capable of achieving this level of technological development. N.A.S.A. Useless Some people point out that N.A.S.A. has become much less efficient than it was during the Space Race, and no longer achieves many things. They believe the solution to this lies in the private space industry, with companies such as Space-X. Michael Gough and Declan McCullagh both believe the private space industry is exponentially more efficient than N.A.S.A. and that private industries in general have been the innovative fields for centuries. (Gough, McCullagh). McCullagh summarizes how he views N.A.S.A.s progress over the past 50 years: Fifty years after Sputnik 1's launch in October 1957, mankind has set foot on precisely one other world (a moon, at that), the space shuttle has at best a 1-in-50 chance of disaster upon each launch, and a completed space station is still a few years out. Since the last moon landing 35 years ago, in fact, mankind has not ventured beyond low Earth orbit again. (McCullagh). He believes that N.A.S.A. is extremely useless to the progress of space exploration. This goes against the proN.A.S.A. argument that the private space industry would only achieve low-Earth orbit, while N.A.S.A. could achieve much more advanced feats.

Eisner4

N.A.S.A. not only useless, but a hindrance Just like there are those who want N.A.S.A. to be funded and those who think N.A.S.A. needs to be funded, there are those who not only think N.A.S.A. doesnt need funding, but that we need to stop funding immediately. Among these people are Jim Grichar, Paul Spudis, and Robert Taylor. Grichar and Taylor specifically agree that funding N.A.S.A. is having detrimental effects on the U.S. economy and its taxpayers. (Grichar, Taylor). Grichar states what he feels is happening in the debate: but neither the President nor supporters of this revamped NASA space program have come up with any real justification for continuing a multibillion dollar boondoggle other than saying that it is our destiny to explore the solar system and beyondas that appears to be the only reason to continue funding NASA, taxpayers should demand that the whole program be abolished to reduce the federal budget deficit. (Grichar). Taylor believes that, other than weakening the economy, N.A.S.A. is also a misallocation of labor that could be much more efficient in the private industry. (Taylor). Paul Spudis view is similar to that of Taylor and Grichar, but also contains a more extreme point. He believes that N.A.S.A.s only goal is to make the public perceive that it will do everything they want in space as long as it gets money, but then uses the money in its own interest. (Spudis). He believes N.A.S.A. must be shut down and must repay the country for this alleged corruption. Mixed View A more mixed view on the debate is that of Brett Biddington. Biddington agrees largely with those stating that N.A.S.A. is and has been inefficient in the past years. However, he believes N.A.S.A. should have a large role in society as long as it can make changes to fix itself.

Eisner5

(Biddington). He reveals what he believes is the solution to the debate: For a start, NASA needs to embrace collaboration with China and other spacefaring nations something thats been limited thus far and that the agency also needs to approach Congress and the Obama Administration about the negative impacts on US science, technology and innovation created by the extremely strict laws which seek to prevent US space technologies from being available to others. (Biddington). He also believes that N.A.S.A. needs to work with the private space industry. These mixed views take various arguments from both sides of the debate and merge them together. This appears to me a more unique argument. Final Comments The debate on N.A.S.A.s funding attracts a wide range of opinions from a wide range of people. As new budgets are proposed by the government and new plans are proposed by N.A.S.A. itself, different opinions will show up and influence the outcome of the debate. Many of them will be biased based on the person they are coming from, such as employees of N.A.S.A. or the private space industry, politicians, free market supporters, or public funding supporters. However, there is a lack of statistical and mathematic proof presented by these different people showing the true effects of cutting or increasing N.A.S.A. funding. Perhaps a solution to this is to take economic data from each year for the past half a century and compare it to the N.A.S.A. funding as a percent of the federal budget for those years. Doing this might be able to reveal a sort of linear correlation between the two. This will require highly specialized economists, statisticians, and mathematicians to analyze the data and come up with results. Such results could include: as the funding percentage of N.A.S.A. went up, the economys status went up, and as the funding of N.A.S.A. went down, the economys status went down too; as the funding percentage of N.A.S.A. went up, the economy went down; and as the funding went down, the

Eisner6

economy went up. The first two results would indicate a positive correlation between the economy and N.A.S.A. funding. The second two results would indicate a negative correlation between the two. A positive correlation would be one that pro-N.A.S.A. arguers would expect to see, while a negative correlation would be one that anti-N.A.S.A arguers would expect to find. However, one obstacle that must be overcome for this research to be successful is defining any possible lurking variables that could have influenced the results and then eliminating their influence. With this being achieved, the final results of trying to find a linear correlation can help provide hard evidence about N.A.S.A.s effects on the economy. This hard evidence might help to show people if their arguments about the economic effects of N.A.S.A. funding are supported by facts or not. This would also help to show the true effects of N.A.S.A.s funding.

Eisner7

Works Cited Biddington Adjunct Professor, B. 2012. NASA, we have a problem: why America is lost in space. [online] Available at: http://theconversation.com/nasa-we-have-a-problem-why-americais-lost-in-space-5396 [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Chow, D. 2013. Boosting NASA's Budget Will Help Fix Economy: Neil deGrasse Tyson. [online] Available at: http://www.space.com/15310-nasa-budget-future-space-exploration.html [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Diaz, J. 2013. Why the Government Must Spend More Money On NASA. [online] Available at: http://gizmodo.com/5962595/why-the-government-must-spend-more-money-on-nasa [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Endr, A. 2012. 5 Reasons why NASA budget cuts are killing America [Infographics] . [online] vAvailable at: http://aaronendre.com/2012/08/21/5-reasons-why-nasa-budget-cuts-arekilling-america-infographics/ [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Friedman, H. 2013. NASA Simply Stopped Being a Priority. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/nasa-funding-federalbudget_b_1464070.html [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Galant, R. 2013. Bill Nye: U.S. risks losing its space edge. [online] Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/opinion/nye-planetsexploration/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013].

Eisner8

Gough, M. 2013. Dont Lavish Funds on NASA. [online] Available at: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-lavish-funds-nasa [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Grichar, J. 2004. Wielding the Budget Axe: It's Time to Abolish NASA LewRockwell.com. [online] Available at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/jim-grichar-aka-exxgman/wielding-the-budget-axe-its-time-to-abolish-nasa/ [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Levinger, J. 2013. Should we cut NASA funding? - The Tech. [online] Available at: http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/nasacp.html [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Mccullagh, D. 2013. Do we need NASA? - CNET News. [online] Available at: http://news.cnet.com/2009-11397-6211308.html [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Mclain, R. 2012. The Case For NASA: Refuting The Arguments Against The Agency Independent Voter Network. [online] Available at: http://ivn.us/2012/05/30/the-case-fornasa-refuting-the-arguments-against-theagency/?utm_source=ivn&utm_medium=featured&utm_content=prevnext&utm_campai gn=opt-beta-v-1-0 [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Pangburn, D. 2011. 5 Reasons Obama Should Not Slash NASA Budget. [online] Available at: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/154689/5-reasons-obama-should-not-slash-nasabudget/ [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Spudis, P. 2013. Would More Money Improve NASA?. [online] Available at: http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/07/would-more-money-improve-nasa/ [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013].

Eisner9

Taylor, R. 2011. The Case For Defunding NASA. [online] Available at: http://www.policymic.com/articles/54/the-case-for-defunding-nasa [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013]. Tickle, G. 2013. Russias Putting $52 Billion Into Their Space Program, Would Be Nice If We Could Fund NASA. [online] Available at: http://www.geekosystem.com/52-billion-forrussian-space-program/ [Accessed: 3 Nov 2013].