Debating NASA's Budget and Importance As the Term Paper

Debating NASA's Budget and Importance

As the increasingly impotent federal government lurches towards the edge of a self-imposed fiscal cliff, the public and politicians alike have largely accepted the inevitability of deep cuts to the nation's massively inflated budget. While there is still rancorous debate over exactly how the proverbial belt should be tightened, with conservatives demanding reductions in so-called entitlement programs and liberals countering with decreased military spending, a consensus seems to have emerged regarding the budgetary necessity of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Considered by many symbol of bureaucratic waste, with billions of dollars being devoted to implausible missions and esoteric experiments, NASA has been universally targeted as an expendable asset during economic turmoil. Indeed, the most recent federal budget request for 2013 made by President Barack Obama "cuts NASA's planetary science funding from $1.5 billion to $1.2 billion, with further reductions expected in coming years" (Wall), and most experts agree that the era of meaningful governmental investment in space exploration has come to an end. This decision to relegate NASA's cutting edge scientific research and manned space flight missions, once seen as shining emblems of America's global supremacy, to the budgetary dustbin of outdated programs represents a disturbing consequence of the ongoing economic recession. By analyzing the available fiscal data, in conjunction with an examination of our national priorities, it is possible to objectively determine NASA's relative worth when weighed against the agency's increasingly prohibitive costs.

The recently revived debate over NASA's funding situation has raged for decades, but the confluence of widespread financial uncertainty and the public's lack of faith in the ability of its government has thrust the seemingly innocuous scientific endeavor to the forefront of the national discussion. Amidst the backdrop of fiscally conservative leaders, such as former candidate for the Republican presidential nomination Newt Gingrich, vocally decrying NASA's less than stellar track record with accomplishing its missions on budget, the beleaguered space program is making national news on an almost daily basis.Despite Gingrich's recriminations that "a National Aeronautics and Space Administration which has currently got no vehicles that can get to the space station" (Foust) should be considered a failure, the recent launch of the Curiosity rover to Mars demonstrates the agency's continual potential to expand the frontiers of human knowledge. Designed and constructed at a price of over $2.5 billion, the Curiosity rover has proven to be immensely successful, sending a stream of invaluable scientific data to NASA researchers while revealing the Red Planet to be a far more complex environment than previously suspected. Capable of performing intricately complex tasks, from collecting and analyzing soil samples to photographing faraway landmarks for geospatial mapping, the Curiosity rover currently exploring the surface of Mars is a direct product of the government's already meager investment in NASA and its initiatives. By drastically slashing NASA's operating budget even further in upcoming years, America will all but assure that the triumph of becoming the first nation to plant their flag on another planet, a feat which is our birthright after Neil Armstong's lunar exploits, will be claimed by Russia, China, or even a private corporation.

While reductions to its operating budget have significantly hampered the ability of NASA to remain relevant to the degree seen in the 1960's, many of the more fiscally hawkish members of Congress have openly called for the program to be eliminated entirely. The ongoing efforts by both Republicans and Democrats to reign in runaway federal spending have invariably targeted NASA, at the expense of similarly wasteful programs like Medicare and Social Security, because popular perception values financial stability over scientific advancement. The argument….....