Matala 1

Austin Matala

Professor Reynolds

CCP English 1201

17 April 2021

Increasing NASA’s Funding

The Space Shuttle Program was a controversial and expensive program that consisted of

multiple disasters and scientific progress that cost the Federal Government $211 billion dollars

(Lee, M., English, Marlanda, 4). The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

receives less than 1% of the entire Federal budget each year. Why does NASA continue to

receive less than 1% of the Federal Budget? The audience for this research paper is young adults

who are interested in finance and aviation/aerospace focused careers that want to learn more

about the impact the Federal Government has on its programs. Increasing the commercialization

and privatization of space will remove NASA’s reliance on the Federal budget, which is

burdened with expensive mandated programs, and increase scientific growth and our

understanding of space.

NASA was originally founded to explore the oceans of Earth but switched its priorities to

the stars after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik and began the “Space Race.” A few months

later the United States launched its first satellite, Explorer 1. Three years later “Yuri Gagarin

became the first man to orbit the Earth” and within a few months John Glenn became the first

American to do the same (Lee, US Space Program: An Overview).

 Matala 2

The project ended in 1975 and the United States came out as the winner of the “Space

Race” and the Cold War as the Soviet Union collapsed under economic strain. “Since the 1970s

US Astronauts have not returned to the Moon and all human spaceflight since then were

controversial and have thus been retired (Lee, US Space Program: An Overview). Since then,

NASA has been viewed by some as an “…unjustifiable drain on already limited resources” (Lee,

US Space Program: An Overview). Proponents however argue that the space program has

benefited and continues to benefit the ordinary citizen whilst also being “…an international

model for scientific cooperation and has helped secure space as a peaceful frontier for the

exploration and education of all humankind and that NASA is a beneficial and productive use of

government funds and should be maintained and expanded as a matter of policy” (Issitt et al,

Counterpoint: We All Benefit from Space Exploration).

NASA is a discretionary program, which means it receives its funding after the

mandatory programs, which consists of benefit programs and programs required by law. This

means that NASA’s funding comes second and receives the small amount of money left over

after the mandated programs receive theirs. Discretionary spending, which consists of all the

other programs, is estimated to be $1.485 trillion this year (Amadeo, Kimberly, 4). This holds

NASA back from a large proportion of the budget which it is completely dependent on in order

to accomplish its multitude of projects and scientific achievements.

Benefit programs are the number one drain on the Federal budget and they continue to

get more and more expensive as more people begin to use them. This means that as more people

become eligible for them their burden on the Federal budget grows and the money left over for

discretionary programs shrinks. The author of Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?

States that Mandatory spending is dominated by earned-benefit programs such as Social Security
 Matala 3

and Medicare. The amount spent on benefit programs is determined by the number of people

who are eligible for them and therefore they are increasingly getting more and more expensive

and take up around 2/3 of the entire Federal budget (3-4). This means that the only way to

decrease the amount of money spent on these programs is too make them harder to become

eligible for which would hurt many people in the country who depend on them to live their lives.

One solution to decreasing the amount spent of the mandated benefit programs is to make

them harder to be eligible for. They do not necessarily need to be harder but if they are more

personalized to the individuals that really depend on them then more money would be left over

for discretionary programs. “Mandated programs, such as Social Security, and Medicare, account

for about 60% of the budget” (Amadeo, Kimberly, 2). These increasingly expensive programs

will eventually become too expensive for the American public to afford and it will create huge

issues for future generations.

Another solution to increasing the funding for discretionary programs is to reduce the

amount spent on the military which is also funded under the discretionary funds. Hundreds of

billions of dollars are spent on the military each year and even a small percentage of that funding

would greatly help NASA’s efforts. “The discretionary budget for 2021 is $1.485 trillion. Half of

that is military spending and other defense-related expenditures. The rest must pay for the other

domestic programs” (Amadeo, Kimberly, 6). 5% of the amount spent on the military would be

$35 billion dollars which would double the amount NASA gets every year.

Increasing the commercialization or “space tourism” would allow NASA to make money

off of rich billionaires who would be willing to go to space no matter the cost. Russia has been

allowing billionaires trips to the ISS and Low Earth Orbit – about 100km above sea level – for

the last few decades and they have gained a large amount of money from it. NASA has not
 Matala 4

announced any plans to enter the space tourism market, but the Russian Federal Space Agency

has been providing transportation to the ISS at an estimated cost of $20 million to $40 million

per ticket” (Amadeo, Kimberly, 4). $20 million dollars does not seem like much but if 100

people purchase a ticket that would give $2 billion dollars to the agency to spend at will and it

would greatly decrease the agencies dependence on the Federal budget.

Increased privatization of space won’t directly help NASA with funding, but it will allow

more companies to research and continue scientific development. More companies working

towards space research takes pressure off of NASA to conduct most of the scientific growth.

“The first is the prospect of encouraging the ‘privatization of space’—that is, reducing the

burden of federal funding for NASA by allowing private companies to conduct more commercial

and research practices in outer space” (Amadeo, Kimberly, 4). It’s simple, if there are more

companies focused on something, then more benefits are going to come out of it.

SpaceX is a perfect example of the benefits that come out of commercializing and

privatizing space. NASA has chosen SpaceX to construct the landing craft that will bring the

next astronauts to the surface of the Moon in 2024. New technologies have also come from

SpaceX, specifically the self-landing reusable booster that they use on nearly all of their

launches. The booster cuts down on costs as a new booster does not have to be fully built and it

just needs to be refueled and reattached. NASA also now launches astronauts from “American

soil using SpaceX’s Falcon-9 heavy rockets for the first time since 2011.

SpaceX is also helping millions of people around the world connect to each other through

the internet. Elon Musk, the owner of SpaceX, said last year that “…full reusability and thrifty

use of propellant would drop the cost of each Starship launch to $2 million…the Space Launch

System (SLS), the NASA-developed heavy-lift rocket that is supposed to power the agency back
 Matala 5

to the Moon and on to Mars…could cost $900 million per launch – if it ever launches” (Mann,

Adam, 3). We need more businesses like SpaceX to focus on space understanding and

development.

NASA’s efforts have produced technologies that we use every single day and that would

never have been invented at the time they were if they weren’t funded to continue their efforts.

Imagine what technologies we could have if NASA had received even 1% of the Federal budget.

In the article, Counterpoint: We All Benefit from Space Exploration, the authors state that, every

problem NASA overcomes is a pathway to another new technology (Issitt, Micah, et el., 2). It’s

easy to see that increased funding for NASA would result in, and has previously resulted in new

technologies and scientific developments.

Even while receiving less than 1% of the budget NASA produces technology that have

affected all of our lives. Almost all of the technological advancements resulting from the space

program were completely unexpected and shocking. The development of eyeglasses that were

scratch-resistant, a metal that withstands extreme bending is used in the arms and legs of space

satellites, has also found a use in orthodontic braces. NASA scientists have also created a

number of innovative body monitoring devices that have been applied in the medical industry,

including the blood-pressure monitor. The guidance systems on their ships have been put into

devices for pacemakers and pain relief tools that are put directly into the human body. All of

those projects required consistent funding (Issitt, Micah, et al., 2).

International cooperation is extremely important to keeping space open for all and it can

open more pathways for NASA to work with others to gain funding and more importantly reach

towards their goals. Culture is being formed through a combination of cooperation and

dependence. As the world becomes more and more connected with social media and the internet
 Matala 6

the want for space exploration and information has grown. Tensions have also grown which

threaten the aspect of space being a free area for all to explore and cooperate together in the

common drive for exploration and innovation.

Not only is NASA important on the international scale, but locally, Southwest Ohio

specifically, NASA is important for us and we are very important to them and their goals. The

support of local business and industry is very important and NASA sees our area as vitally

important. The aircraft and aerospace industry are Ohio’s top export, consisting of aircraft parts

and engines which were Ohio’s #1 export. That is why Bridenstine called Southwest Ohio as a

key part of NASA’s mission” (Pittman, Michael, 2).

Historically, Ohio’s an important part to NASA and some of the most important people

in their history came from Ohio. Aviation was born in Dayton, Ohio and the first man to walk on

the Moon, Neil Armstrong, and the first American to orbit the Earth, John Glenn, were both Ohio

natives. (Pittman, Michael, 3). Ohio needs to continue to support NASA and their goals to lead

the exploration of space and the growth of humanities knowledge of the unknown. NASA’s

director was impressed by the companies, big and large, and really wanted them to know that he

believes they are vitally important to NASA’s goals and the nations efforts to explore space.

One factor that holds NASA back from funding is that some people believe that NASA is

a waste of our time and money and that they already receive too much funding that’s wasted on

useless programs. Many of these opponents believe that manned space flight is the most

expensive yet pointless thing that NASA does. “NASA is a waste of money and all manned

space flight programs should be cut to reduce its burden of funding with little scientific progress.

Manned space flight is very expensive, not very safe, and is overall unnecessary. (Pawlick, et al.,

“Point: Human Space Flight is a Pointless Waste of Money”). However, while the authors of that
 Matala 7

article are entitled to their own opinion the evidence and technologies that have come from

manned space flight specifically proves their statements false.

Some also believe that the public is no longer interested in space and in NASA

exploration. If the American public is not interested in something than why should we continue

to fund that program? However, in the article “Counterpoint: We All Benefit from Space

Exploration”, public polls show that 88% of Americans are still interested and believe that the

space program is important and worth the funding that’s required (Issitt et al., 1). The paper also

goes on to state that the space program continues to be a source for national pride and scientific

growth (Issitt et al).

Some see the Space Shuttle program and NASA as a waste of our precious resources and

as a burden on the Federal budget. The fact that 14 astronauts lost their lives whilst living their

dreams and hoping to explore the unknown should encourage many to increase the agencies

funding in order to also increase the safety protocols and measures. In the past, the agency was

able to take a step back and see some of the flaws in their processes and come up with the

solutions to fix them. These solutions, however, were only able to be implemented using a large

amount of funding from their budget.

The Space Shuttle Program led to changes that greatly improved the agencies safety

measures and changed the way the agency functioned as a whole. The scientific growth and

technological developments, the importance of Southwest Ohio for NASA, the international need

for keeping space open and safe, and maximizing the commercialization and privatization of

space, all support and provide solutions to why NASA receives less than 1% of the Federal

budget and how we can increase NASA’s funding. Thus, increasing the commercialization and

privatization of space will remove NASA’s reliance on the Federal budget, which is burdened
 Matala 8

with expensive mandated programs, and increase scientific growth and our understanding of

space.
 Matala 9

Works Cited

“Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?”, National Priorities Project, 2015,

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-

101/spending/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Treasury%20divides%20all,programs%20on%2

0which%20we%20rely. Accessed 7 March 2021.

Amadeo, Kimberly. “U.S. Federal Budget Breakdown.” The Balance, 29 October 2020,

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-federal-budget-breakdown-3305789. Accessed 7 March

2021.

Pawlick, Peter, et al. “Point: Human Space Flight is a Pointless Waste of Money.” Sinclair

Library Collection Points of View Database, 2017,

http://web.a.ebschost.com.sinclair.ohionet.org/pov/command/detail?vid=4&sid=7e49a42

5-c736-4b87-a587-75aa24bcc73a%40sessionmgr4006. Accessed 3 March 2021.

Issitt, Micah, et al. “Counterpoint: We All Benefit from Space Exploration.” Sinclair Library

Collection Points of View Database, 2017,

http://web.a.ebschost.com.sinclair.ohionet.org/pov/command/detail?vid=2&sid=67156ce

7-a181-47dd-8b9b-3fbc95b93426%40sdc-v-sessmgr02. Accessed 3 March 2021.

Lee, M., English, Marlanda. “U.S. Space Program: An Overview.” Sinclair Library Collection

Points of View Database, 31 December 2017,

http://web.a.ebschost.com.sinclair.ohionet.org/pov/detail/detail

?vid=1&sid=6d970111-4535-46ec-

81eb4a4c67247c33%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9cG92LWxpdmU%3d#AN=2

3366408&db=pwh. Accessed 3 March 2021.

 Matala 10

Pitman, Michael. “Southwest Ohio Called ‘Critically Important’ in NASA’s Push for

Exploration.” Dayton Daily News, 24 February 2020,

https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/southwest-ohio-called-critically-important-nasa-

push-for-exploration/MPrm68QMs5afisuso2Bs0N/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

Mann, Adam. “SpaceX Now Dominates Rocket Flight, Bringing Big Benefits – and Risks – to

NASA.” Science Insider, Science AAAS Magazine, 20 May 2020,

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/spacex-now-dominates-rocket-flight-

bringing-big-benefits-and-risks-nasa. Accessed 1 May 2020.