Bridger Brownlee

Mr. Shields

English 1010

May, 11 2020

Research Question: Should the Government Continue to Fund Space Missions?

As the world continues to develop and advance more and more people are looking toward

the stars. They dream of other worlds and possible life, but how do we possibly make these

dreams a reality? The answer is through space exploration. However, missions into space are not

cheap due to the remarkable hostile environment. This brings people to speculation on whether

our government should fund such operations. There are many views on this subject, non-

believers and more “down to Earth people,” say that our government should not fund space

missions because there are more useful ways of spending the money. While government

agencies, private space companies, and science and space enthusiasts say the funding of space

missions will have a positive effect on us and that it will help us to advance further. Then there

are those who contend that while space missions should be funded, that the investments are

better spent on more practical operations such as advancing our various technologies in space

and making them safer. They believe it would be better to work on technology in space rather

than pumping millions of dollars into something, such as distant travel, that might not even be

obtainable.

Those who do not think that the government should fund space missions are obviously

less enthusiastic about it. Most of them believe that investing government funds into space

exploration will bring us no benefit, and that there are more pressing and current matters that

need those resources and attention. In her article, NASA Shouldn’t Be Funded by the
Government, Kassidy Neville gives reason for all the ways the NASA budget is spent on ill-

advised projects. Neville argues that the money invested into space exploration is inadequately

spent. For instance, Nasa’s has a newly announced mission to spend $2.4 billion dollars to

recover samples from the surface of Mars, however, this mission will not return them to Earth.

Rather a whole new mission must be drafted and approved to retrieve them, which will need

additional funding. Neville expresses that 19.3 billion dollars “could pay for 1.94 million young

adults in the United States to attend a public 4-year university, we could provide 1.87 million

people with health care, or we could use the money to fund the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA) for one year.” Neville and others believe that the money invested into

space exploration could be better spent and devoted to more current and pressing situations, such

as providing health care to those who need it or education to those who cannot afford it.

NASA has also been known to overrun their spending and constantly exceed budget

projections. Chabeli Carrazana provides a specific example of this when writing her article for

the Orlando Sentinel. She writes about NASA’s newest ongoing mission, Artemis. This mission

plan is to put the next man and woman on the moon by 2024, then to use their landing as a

jumping off point for Mars. Carrazana explains the magnitude of challenges and how this

mission is being constantly delayed resulting in high surges in cost. In fact their initial estimated

cost for Artemis was $10.2 billion, and is expected to reach $18.3 billion by 2021. That is almost

95% of their yearly budget. The fact that NASA tends to overspend leads people to speculate on

whether or not the money devoted to them is being wisely spent.

Contrary to this belief, NASA, as well as many private space enterprises and supporters

believe the possible gain from space exploration to be endless. When writing her article “Of

course space exploration is worth the money,” on The Conversation, Monica Grady talks about
how we take for granted the many benefits that have been generated through national support of

space exploration. Firstly, she expresses that contrary to popular belief, the space industry is full

of economic potential. It brings a lot of work and employment: It pays for people to do the

research, design and assemble the technology, and pilot and operate said technology. Not only

this but government funded agencies such as NASA or the European Space Agency(ESA) can

contract privately funded space related corporations, such as SpaceX, with tasks in order to both

save money and stimulate the economic sector. Government funded space agencies, private

space companies, and space and science enthusiasts also believe that through space exploration

we have received a great many number of gifts. Grady expresses her gratitude to the “armada of

satellites orbiting the Earth'' that provide us with internet access, navigation systems, and much

more. This acknowledgment can also be seen in the article “How space technology benefits the

Earth'' on thespacereview.com, in which the authors provide a sufficient list of the many present

and future benefits brought on through the field of space exploration, e.g. around the globe

communications, accurate weather prediction, and space solar power. Niel deGrasse Tyson, an

astrophysicist and director of the Hayden Planetarium, also shares in this recognition. He

understands that much of today's technology is the aftermath of the research done for space

missions and exploration. Small examples would include velcro and scratch-resistant lenses.

Tyson full heartedly believes that the funding of space missions should continue and even

double. According to Tyson, NASA’s yearly budget is microscopic compared to the rest of

federal spending, and doubling it can “attract an entire generation, and generations to follow, to

science and engineering.” This will introduce more and more minds to the field and lead to even

more jobs and an increased economic gain.

 Separate from the two viewpoints above, there are those who belong to both sides. While

they do accept that space exploration should be funded, they also believe the money is being

inadequately invested.They believe that space agencies such as NASA should slow down and

possibly think smaller. On January 28, 1986, the Challenger rocket exploded mid-flight killing 7

astronauts and 1 civilian, a teacher named Christa McAuliffe, who was onboard to be the first

civilian in space. After this disaster the field of space exploration changed. Overall support for

programs like this and for NASA plummeted. Progression severely slowed and NASA decided to

refurbish their safety protocol. The article, “Learning from Challenger Tragedy after 30 years,”

in the, Sun Sentinel newspaper, expresses the lesson learned from that day and how the field had

changed. Ever since people began to consider that we were sticking our hands out too far before

we were strong enough to hold them there, that our dreams were advancing faster than our

capability. In Mike Wall’s article, “Should NASA Ditch Manned Missions to Mars?,” he

provides a multitude of possible reasons on why pushing for Mars isn't the best option. Instead

he gives examples on projects that could provoke economic growth as well as inspire more

privately funded industries to join the frey. An example would be improved space based solar

power. These organizations and people do support the endeavors of the space industry, but wish

to focus on the more obtainable. Instead of reaching for what is out of reach, we should advance

ourselves to the point where the out of reach is easily attainable.

With the careful extent of my research I have come to form my own conclusion. I do

believe that the government should continue to fund space missions. I do concur with the “no”

viewpoint, in that there are many more pressing and current matters that could possibly better

benefit from the investment that is given to space agencies. That being said, we can not turn a
blind eye to all the benefits that come from space exploration. If it were not for the inspired

technologies from this field, our society would not be where it is at now. These benefits would

not be possible without space exploration. You cannot develop something that doesn't already

exist by funding it directly, but rather indirectly. The next step for humanity is through space, the

final frontier. I heavily agree with the point that a substantial portion of enhanced technology has

come through the indirect research of space exploration. So much so that our society has become

reliant on the benefits of space exploration, that reducing funding or halting it all together could

have dire consequences. While many believe that space agencies such as NASA should slow

down and fund more practical operations, I believe that if we do not take bold strokes and risks

then we will be stuck in an endless loop trying to advance. Space exploration is all about the risk,

to step into the unknown, and that is why so many people devote their lives and beings to this

industry: Constantly pushing the barriers of what we already know. Space exploration steadily

creates new and improved technologies and not only discovers more about the universe we live

in, but helps make life easier. I do believe that the government should continue to fund space

missions.

WORKS CITED

● Powell, Corey. Is NASA Worth The Money We Spend On It? 19 Aug. 2016,

www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2016/08/19/is-nasa-worth-the-money-we-spend-on-it/.
● Tyson, Neil deGrasse. Why Exploration Matters--and Why the Government Should Pay

for It. 12 Oct. 2012, www.mckinsey.com/industries/public-sector/our-insights/why-

exploration-matters

● Greenblatt, Jeff, and Al Anzaldua. “How Space Technology Benefits the Earth.” The

Space Review: How Space Technology Benefits the Earth, The Space Review, 29 July

2019, www.thespacereview.com/article/3768/1.

● Grady, Monica. “Of Course Space Exploration Is Worth the Money.” The Conversation,

The Conversation, 20 Sept. 2018, theconversation.com/of-course-space-exploration-is-

worth-the-money-42926

● Neville, Kassidy C. “NASA Shouldn't Be Funded by the Government: Kassidy C.

Neville.” FEE Freeman Article, Foundation for Economic Education, 6 Feb. 2018,

fee.org/articles/nasa-shouldn-t-be-funded-by-the-government/.

● Santana, Marco, and Kevin Spear. "Learning from Challenger Tragedy After 30 Years."

South Florida Sun Sentinel, 24 Jan 2016. sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore-proquest-

com.libprox1.slcc.edu/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2265637072?accountid=28671.

● Wall, Mike. “Should NASA Ditch Manned Missions to Mars?” Space.com, Space, 5

Aug. 2012, www.space.com/16918-nasa-mars-human-spaceflight-goals.html

● Carrazana, Chabeli. "NASA's Moon Rocket Launch is Delayed another Year.." Orlando

Sentinel, 11 Mar 2020. sirsissuesresearcher, https://explore-proquest-

com.libprox1.slcc.edu/sirsissuesresearcher/document/2376022887?accountid=28671.