The NASA Budget Cut - Essay Example

The NASA budget is no longer a luxury we can afford and should be cancelled In the view of the constitution of the United States, funding of federal public works is subject to the spirit of the people and is determined by the Congress. Funding of NASA relies on the goodwill of the American public. The highest NASA budget was the 1961 to 1972 Apollo Program that was motivated by the era’s perceived threat to national security that early leads in spaceflight by Soviet Union posed. The NASA project led to the highest level budgets that the agency has ever experienced. The percentage of total federal budget and real inflation-adjusted dollars peaked sharply at 4.41%. The relevance of NASA has substantially dwindled over the years. Although the agency conducts research on issues it deems necessary for existence of humankind, there is increasing feeling that its missions are incessantly irrelevant, and its budgetary allocations need to be cut. Perception of most Americans on the proportion of budgetary allocation to NASA is a clear indication that the agency means little to those who fund it. American taxpayers perceive NASA budget as commanding too much money from the federal budget. In real sense, the opinion of most taxpayers is much larger than what the treasury actually allocates NASA. In a survey carried out in 1997, Americans averagely estimated that the share of the national budget to NASA was 20%. This was exceedingly higher than the 0.5% to1% range that the budgetary allocation had maintained for NASA in the periods of 1990s and the first decade of 21st Century. There is a feeling of pressure and financial burden by the American taxpayers. On average, every taxpayer spent less than $10 on NASA activities. Public will is, however, important for the funding of public projects. The Congress is the voice of the people, and it needs to voice out the opinion of the electorate. The message is clear that NASA’s projects burden the public. Budgetary allocations need to be reviewed. The current, popular argument is that NASA exploration activities are a drain on an economy that is already hurting. As Barney Frank said, space exploration is of immense significance. However, sending men to the Mars and back to Earth will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars yet bear little worth. In 2013, the government spent over 4 trillion dollars. While only 0.5% of this went into funding NASA, it disturbs the mind why so much money should be used on exploration of the space while a little less than that could influence so positively in making the lives of people better on earth. Spending several billions of dollars on an exploration to find out whether there is water on Mars beats logic when the same superior brains could utilize the resources to power the insatiable needs for humanity on Earth. There are unfulfilled need for energy and sufficient food for millions of people starving around the globe. Further, the need to review budgetary allocations to NASA is evident in the downward spiral vector its allocation has taken from the Apollo Project. The increasingly diminishing financial allocation provided for NASA projects is an evidence of reducing significance. Among the ambitious targets that NASA had after endearing the Space Race against the Soviet Union, only a project on Space Shuttle was approved. The funding of the agency levelled off at slightly above 1% in 1976. A decade later, it shallowly declined to 0.75%.There was a brief rally of the budgetary allocation to NASA in 1992 to 1.01%. The steady decline repeated itself for the years after to roughly 0.5% by 2012 (Kay, 38). The dwindling budgetary share to NASA postulates a possible scenario for extremely reduced allocation of funds or a total change of funding of the agency. Humanity needs should come first to any humane government and administration. There are multitudes of people on Earth that need help rather than using the needed resources on sending robots to space and other planets. Humanity is the priority. It is necessary to keep the human race alive. Space exploration is a desire while human beings have fundamental needs that must be met for survival. Placing desires before needs makes everyone lose control of their lives; and everyone misses a chance of living a better life. It is commendable that NASA is able to raise technological knowhow from one level to another on regular basis. The trouble is, these technological advances are never to the direct benefit of humanity. As billions go in space explorations and betterment of technology, millions starve to death and die of preventable diseases. It is arguable that there are never any direct benefits from the space explorations. Good things that come by the explorations are indirect and often not the end aims. One of the most useful discoveries of NASA is the Velcro. While this invention is useful, it was not the ultimate aim of the exploration. The moon was the final destination of NASA. Whereas the agency is accredited for this, questions arise over the amounts of money that were spent on it. Post-It note is probably as useful as the invention. While the former cost taxpayers the highest budgetary allocation to a single project in history, the later was developed at a cost of merely 3 million dollars (Kay, 20). Commercial companies dedicated to developing quality products for the sake of making profits can do as meticulous innovation job as NASA at a negligible fraction of its budget. In such a case, there is no need for sustained funding of NASA. Another reason to discredit the high budgetary allocation for NASA is that the Earth itself has never been fully explored. Exploration of the space has been a publicity stunt. The USSR and USA resorted to space exploration only to outdo one another. The exploration is a gimmick and is never about science. Exploration of planet Earth would provide a more valuable scientific endeavour. The sea that covers more than 70% of the earth surface is 95% unexplored. Seabed around volcanic regions and the Antarctica are relatively unexplored. Further, a recent publication reporting on the “Lost Tribe” reveals that the world is not in touch with all indigenous people across the globe (Kay, 72). Scientific knowhow obtained from the Earth, particularly about organisms that live in regions with extreme conditions offer more valuable information than the space. The NASA budgetary allocations should, therefore, be stopped until exploration of the Earth is through and man has sufficient knowledge about his home. The relevance of NASA explorations has diminished given commercial space industry that is slowly taking over. Space exploration had been a good target of funding in the past. It is, however, a growing target of private ingenuity and venture capital. The first private player to get into the industry was the Space X’s reusable rocket. This is expected to reduce the cost of launching for commercial satellites. In addition, there is the Begelow Aerospace investment in space tourism. Furthermore, Virgin Galactic is the other expected space-faring plane. The private company has plans to supply access to cheap space exploration. It would, therefore, be useless to spend huge amounts of money on expensive platforms like the space shuttle. For this reason, a drastic cut or even termination of NASA funding may be considered. It is apparent that NASA does not give value for the monetary allocations and its budgetary considerations need to be revised. Work Cited Kay, W D. Defining Nasa: The Historical Debate Over the Agencys Mission. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014. Internet resource. Read More