Secondly and more importantly, control of space is now critical to our defence, with intelligence-gathering, communications and early warning satellites vital to the protection of American interests and the projection of its power.
Not only should control of this part of our national security not be entrusted to private business, but defence considerations mean that NASA should continue to be well funded in order to ensure the USA continues to be the global leader in all space technology.
As celebrations for the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 begin, the agency has been unable to create a sustainable architecture for lunar return, thereby bleeding the life out exploration efforts. This is a public policy question, but I would point out that it is always tempting to sacrifice long-term goals for short term needs.
In their urgency to exit the Moon as rapidly as possible and get to Mars, NASA is side-stepping the principal reason they were to go to the Moon in the first place — to learn the skills needed to live and work productively on another world.
Instead they would like it to shift its priorities, generally into areas private space businesses are unlikely to venture. They did the first spacewalk and were the first to hit the Moon with a robotic probe.
There are two reasons for this. Even though some historians do not agree with the so-called "frontier thesis" as the sole, or even the primary, source of these characteristics in the United States, space as a new frontier has always been a driver of the U.
The opinions expressed here are his own and do not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution or his employer. This brings us to an essentially ethical question: The agency also ties up vast numbers of talented engineers and scientists in both its own ranks and in university departments that receive NASA funding.
NASA has prevented other branches of government from placing space-related work e. Cutting NASA out of the federal budget, would only cut less than one percent of the total. Nor would scrapping NASA and spending its budget on social programmes make any great difference — the federal government alone spends nearly a hundred times more on social programmes than it does on NASA and state and local governments spend tens of billions more tax dollars on similar programmes.
This technology is transferable to other sciences. We are still in that race today, and surely an international cooperative venture into space -- with all that implies -- strikes a blow against catastrophe, and a victory for civilization. I can honestly say that spending money on exploring the mysterious beyond will give more meaning to our lives than spending money on fancier cars for politicians.
The environmental damage that mankind has inflicted on our planet is so great that life on earth is in great danger. So the impact on the poor from redirecting our space exploration budget would be less significant than a rounding error in federal accounting.
Daniel Boorstin, The Discoverersespecially pp. Private money will never wish to explore the solar system and answer the fundamental questions about the origins of the universe. They orbited the first satellite and the first human. First, in its early days, NASA had little infrastructure — few field centers, test equipment, space vehicles and the people to design, build, test and fly the spacecraft.
NASA is not only ineffective in advancing space exploration; it actually prevents progress by others. NASA is such an expensive part of the government budget that it would be better to redirect the money to more urgent causes here on earth.
Other than that, I think that we can put aside some of our consumerist desires to explore things that are more interesting than the latest social app.The Importance of Exploration (continued) American Exploration Editor's Note: This is the first in a series of essays on exploration by NASA's Chief Historian, Steven J.
Dick. Wells said many years ago that "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.". The government does not put a high enough priorty on space exploration and NASA should receive much more government funding in order to expand its crucial mission. Far from being pointless, NASA’s recent work has allowed mankind to explore the origins of the universe and our own planet’s formation.
NASA, Government funding for. What. Public apathy toward NASA, a lack of understanding of the benefits of a space program, and more pressing matters all lead people to ask: is NASA worth funding at all?
Should there be more funding for NASA?
71% Say Yes 29% Say No More funding for NASA! NASA has brought us many things, and all for a meager.5% of the US budget. I say that NASA should not receive more funding. The exploration of Space is for those with financial motivations because they know how to balance a budget, the.
Would More Money Improve NASA?
A lot of NASA’s early funding went toward building up the facilities needed to go to the Moon: the KSC Moonport (the VAB and Launch Complex 39), the Houston MSC (now JSC) campus, the Deep Space Network and the several other installations around the country.
Should America continue spending money on NASA? 71% Say Yes 29% Say No it is and has been a great program over the decades. However, it should not receive the huge funding that it currently does, and certainly not increased funding.
USA should fund NASA because it has done more than missions with only 3 failures over the past .Download