King 1

Jacob King

Mrs. Collins

ENGL 1301

31 October 2017

NASA Budget Cuts

The budget cuts imposed upon the National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA) have recently gained infamy as one of the more controversial topics in the STEM field

of study. Such monetary reforms would cause NASA to cut programs such as NASA Education,

but would allow for more spending on other government programs such as health care and social

security. Many see NASA as one of the core foundations modern America is built upon since its

founding in the 1960s. They see the budget reforms as an assault on the fundamentals of this

nation, and would otherwise be detrimental to the advancement of science in this country.

Others, such as Robert Taylor from Mic.com, view NASAs spending as unnecessary and

extremely excessive. They believe that the money should be redirected towards other institutions,

aiming to assist civilians in need rather than looking to the stars. NASAs budget cuts have

become increasingly prominent due to the arguments for monetary reform, stating that the money

is better used somewhere else and is used excessively, and the arguments against, claiming that

the advancement of science and boosting the economy is much more important.

Many believe that NASA has been spending far too much money than need be. They

believe that NASAs advancements are far outweighed by commercial markets, and wish to have

the government play no part in the sciences. In 2011, Robert Taylor authored an article dubbed

The Case for Defunding NASA on Mic.com, in which he wrote , The best thing that could

happen for the future would be for NASA to retire all of its shuttles. Taylor goes on to
 King 2

explain that some of the greatest scientific achievements used for space exploration came from

private organizations. He states that AT&T developed the first telecommunications satellite to

provide a better service for its customers. Later, he claims that inventions such as PCs, internet

and even something as simple as velcro were invented by private organizations, not from a multi

billion dollar, tax-paid organization such as NASA. Taylor even explains that two college

students at MIT managed to take a picture of the Earths curvature with only 150$ compared to

the millions that NASA would have spent, all with the help of private companies. Taylors

argument centers around the idea that the most innovative inventions used to advance the

exploration and study of space, as well as improve the overall well being of those on earth,

comes from those private organizations. His argument is that the overwhelming spending of

NASA results in nothing compared to companies such as SpaceX, as they have had nothing to

show for the billions of tax dollars spent over the past decade.

Another argument for defunding NASA is the amount of money the organization spends

compared to other countries space programs, believing it is better spent elsewhere. According to

an article from 2014, the Washington Post states that the U.S spends more on their space

program than every other country combined (Ferdman). This is so despite retiring its last space

shuttle a few years prior. To put it into context, NASAs spending sits at around 40 billion

dollars annually. Their closest competitor is China, whose spending stands at around 10 billion,

with the next highest being Russia at about 8.5 billion (Ferdman). Compared to these other major

space race competitors, NASAs budget understandably seems outrageous. China and Russias

space programs manage to be competitors with the United States while not spending nearly as

much. Those who see NASAs spending as excessive would likely see this as an example of how

less money can go a long way, and believe that that money is better spent elsewhere.
 King 3

On the other hand, there are many who still feel NASA benefits the United States, and

condemn the cuts. An article published by sciencemag.org states that the organization was dealt a

1% budget cut, and the Earth Science division received a 5% cut (A Grim Budget). Though

seeming rather miniscule, sciencenews.com reports that programs within the Earth Science

division, such as the Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) and the Deep Space Climate

Observatory (DSCOVR), will be eliminated. The same report claims that NASAs Office of

Education will be abandoned as well, leaving those who sought to educate themselves for a

career in the administration looking for a solution elsewhere (Foust). NASA is a major

contributor to the study of Earths environment. Those who argue against these cuts believe that

they will be detrimental to the study of earths climate, and will impede any attempts to develop

ways to improve Earths environment using said studies. They believe that these programs

should continue in order to help keep Earth healthy. Furthering the Earth Science division would

help attain this goal, however the budget cuts prevent this from happening.

Another argument against the cuts is how NASA benefits the U.S economy. NASA is

undoubtedly a major powerhouse in the aerospace engineering community throughout the entire

world. Its technological prowess and significant. A piece from business economics explains how

the aerospace engineering industry is still one of the most prominent in the United States. They

explain that the industry creates many, high paying jobs for Americans, as they create many

products purchased by airlines, and even the government, specifically NASA (Soshkin). Without

NASAs purchases from this industry, aerospace engineering would be significantly less

prominent. This would make one of the last major manufacturing industries left in the United

States obsolete, making jobs even more scarce in the economy.

 King 4

Ultimately, both sides have a compelling argument for and against the NASA budget

reforms. Those for the reforms argue that NASA spends far to excessively, and that the U.S

would benefit from leaving space technology to private industries. Those against the reforms

argue that suspending the cut programs will be detrimental to Earths health and believe that

NASA benefits the nation's economy.

Works Cited

"A grim budget day for U.S science." sciencemag.org, 16 Mar. 2017. Ebsco. Accessed 20 Oct.

2017.
 King 5

Ferdman, Roberto A. "The U.S still spends more money on space than every other country."

thewashingtonpost.com, The Washington Post, 25 Oct. 2014. Accessed 17 Oct. 2017.

Foust, Jeff. "White House proposes $19.1 billion NASA budget, cuts Earth science and

education." spacenews.com, 23 May 2017. Accessed 20 Oct. 2017.

Shoshkin, Maksim. "The U.S Aerospace Industry: A Manufacturing Powerhouse." Business

Economics, vol. 51, no. 3, July 2016, pp. 166-80. Ebsco. Accessed 1 Nov. 2017.

Taylor, Robert. "The Case for Defunding NASA." mic.com, 28 Apr. 2011. Accessed 17 Oct.

2017.