Austin Matala

English Composition 2

3/20/2021

Caroline Reynolds

Literature Review
Each year over 650 billion dollars is spent on the United States military while less than

20 billion is spent on the National Aeronautical and Space Association (NASA). This is less than

1% of the federal budget which was proposed to be, “a record $4.829 trillion. Mandatory

spending – spending on programs that are required by law- is budgeted at $2.966 trillion,

discretionary spending – spending on all other ‘optional’ areas – is budgeted at $1.485 trillion,

and the interest on the national debt – the interest the government pays minus the income that is

received – is estimated to be $378 billion” (“Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go?”,

2015). With such a large budget, why does NASA continue to receive less than 1% of the federal

budget each year?

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). In September of 1962,

“President John F. Kennedy made his famous speech in which he committed the United States to

putting a man on the moon before the end of the decade. The Apollo project launched in 1967

and despite an early disaster, NASA’s efforts allowed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to
become the first men on the moon in the summer of 1969” (Lee, US Space Program: An

Overview). 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 conducted by

NASA since then has consisted of either transporting crews to the International Space Station

(ISS) or missions that were part of its controversial Space Shuttle Program” which has 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 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).

The claim that the funding provided to NASA creates new technologies and economic

opportunities is apparent throughout both” US Space Program: An Overview” and”

Counterpoint: We All Benefit from Space Exploration.” The students who wrote, “Counterpoint:

We All Benefit from Space Exploration”, argues that the funding NASA receives creates

research projects and technologies that have direct and practical applications in the ordinary

person’s life (2). They base their claim off of the previous technologies that have been created

and that are used everyday in the medical field. Marlanda English in her article, “US Space

Program: An Overview”, also argues that the space program has benefited ordinary people as a
result of the many new communications, medical, and materials technologies that have been

developed with NASA’s budget (4).

NASA receives its funding under the discretionary section of the federal budget. One

claim between two of the articles is that the mandatory spending section of the federal budget

takes up an increasingly more and more expensive part of the budget that takes away from

spending that could be used for discretionary programs. The author of “Federal Spending: Where

Does the Money Go”, states that Mandatory spending is “…dominated by the well-known

earned-benefit programs Social Security 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). Kimberly Amadeo, in her article reviewed by Roger Wohlner, states that “The

government expects to spend $4.829 trillion in 2021. Almost 60% of that pays for mandated

benefits such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid” (“U.S. Federal Budget Breakdown”,

4).

One possible solution for gaining more funding is by “increasing the privatization and

commercialization of space in order to take away from complete reliance on government funding

in order to help further scientific discovery” (Lee, M., English, Marlanda, US Space Program:

An Overview 4). If we allowed more private companies to conduct more commercial and

research practices in outer space the burden of federal funding for NASA would be greatly

reduced (Lee, M., English, Marlanda, US Space Program: An Overview 4). International

collaboration and privatization are essential to the success of the space program and future space

exploration (Issitt et al, “Counterpoint: We All Benefit from Space Exploration” 3).
 Critics argue that, “NASA is a waste of money and that all manned space flight programs

be cut in order to reduce the burden of funding with little scientific progress” (Pawlick et al.,

“Point: Human Space Flight is a Pointless Waste of Money). “Human space flight is costly,

dangerous, and unnecessary. The Space Shuttle Program and the International Space Station,

which together represent the bulk of NASA’s efforts over the past 30 years, have achieved little

scientific discovery” (Pawlick et al., “Point: Human Space Flight is a Pointless Waste of

Money”). Opponents also state that public interest in space exploration is dwindling (4).

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 a

worthwhile venture even despite the tough economic issues (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).

There are many pros and cons that face the topic of NASA and federal funding.

Expensive mandatory benefit programs and negative opinions about the worthwhileness of the

program hold it back from receiving an increase in funding. One possible solution for releasing

the burden of NASA’s funding on the federal budget is the privatization and commercialization

of the space industry however I would need to do more research into it. I would also like to

explore more into the Mandatory benefit programs and possible solutions to the problems that

are facing it as well.

 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.