An Argument Against NASA

​ NASA has been an instrumental force in technology development over the last century. With advancements in computer technology, space exploration, defense management, transportation and health development, the institution has played a major role in driving the government’s agenda to ensure public safety and aid in learning processes. However, in the last few years, the government has reduced the budgetary allocation to NASA, citing harsh economic times. This has seen a reduction in the institution’s capacity to continue aiding the country in managing most of the basic provisions such as health care and national security.
​As a supporter of the work that NASA does, my opinion is that the move to continue the budget cuts towards NASA is unfair.

The institution continues to conduct research in areas such as medicine, computer technology, agriculture, intelligence gathering and space exploration. These are essential to the existence of the nation’s citizens. Those supporting the move to reduce funding to NASA argue that the institution uses billions of dollars of taxpayer money to advance technology that is not beneficial to the country. In their view, NASA’s quest in space exploration is a waste of money and time and should, therefore, receive less funding. As a strong believer in NASA’s work, I disapprove of the assumption that NASA is a wasteful institution. Through its space exploration program, NASA has brought the country great pride, especially because the United States became the first country to land man on the moon. Moreover, NASA engages in research pertaining to computer technology and health management, which are all beneficial to the country. A reduction in funding means that the institution fails in its resolve to advance technology as well as its space exploration programs (McBrien).
Phil Plait of Slate Magazine describes the budget cuts as giving a haircut to a bald man (Plait). In his view, the reduction in funding to NASA sees a decrease in the resources allocated to education development by NASA. Through communicating with institutions of higher learning, NASA has over the years contributed tremendously to research that has seen an increase in the level of education in the country. The reduction in funding means that NASA has to abandon some of its educational programs to conform to the low budgetary allocation (Leone). This is unacceptable and may be detrimental to the growth of the country. A national poll conducted by debate.org revealed that 75% of the responded believed that the government should continue funding NASA with 25% asserting that the government should cut funding to the institution (Debate.org).
​According to Friedman, space exploration stopped being a priority to the government (Friedman). In the 1960s, huge chunks of money were given to NASA, which culminated in the moon landing. However, the years that followed the moon landings saw significant cuts in budgetary allocation to NASA. In his view, space exploration is no longer a priority considering the fiscal state the country is in at the moment. In my view, this argument is misplaced and only serves to undermine the work that NASA does to keep the country informed on space exploration.
​The moon landing in 1969 was a major milestone in space exploration.

Having sent the first man to the moon, the country enjoys great pride and improved the nation’s heritage. The Apollo missions that followed ascertained that the country was indeed a leader in space exploration in the quest to understand extraterrestrial life forms. With this milestone, the next step in space exploration would be to send manned flights to other planets. This culminated in the exploration of Mars to investigate the possibility of existence in the planet. Though the explorations are still ongoing, many of the pundits opposed to continued funding of NASA claim that the explorations are a waste of money, which would otherwise be channeled to other ‘more important sectors.’ This has sparked a debate on the importance of NASA’s mandate and elicited mixed feelings from proponents and

opponents.
​ In an article in The Washington Post, Bill Nye (The Science Guy) appeals to the Obama administration not to cut budgetary allocations to NASA, citing the tremendous steps the institution has taken in advancing most of the sectors in the country in addition to contributing to national pride (Kolawole).

In the Washington Times, Zubrin examines the proposed budgetary cuts to NASA and explains the importance of NASA to the country’s development (Zubrin). The article in the Washington Times adopts a harsh tone and refers to the budgetary cuts as death of Mars exploration. The article in the Washington Post presents a much relaxed argument and implores the government not to reduce funding to NASA. Though the two articles in the two media outlets have the same message, the tone adopted by each author is different. After reading the articles, my resolve has only become stronger since the articles illuminate the need to continue, or even increase funding to

NASA.
​Research into the budgetary cuts at NASA has opened up my mind to the vast development opportunities that stand to be lost if the government continues to reduce funds to the institution each year. Technology is fast growing and the nation needs an institution that will remain on the forefront to drive this agenda. Additionally, the nation, being one of the superpowers needs to explore other planetary bodies to investigate threats and possibilities that affect life on earth. With this in mind, it is only fair that the government view NASA as a contributor of national pride and development rather than a liability that has run its course (Huffington Post). There is still a lot to be learnt in terms of space exploration and advancement of technology, and NASA is in the best position to make this possible. Therefore, my opinion still remains, the same; the government needs to stop cutting funding to NASA to facilitate national growth and heritage.The research conducted towards compilation of this paper has been precise and has presented arguments that have instigated a learning process in my mind.