In the past decade or so, the United States government has been bringing up the question of the NASA space program's future in the nation's budget. In this paper I will be exploring both sides of the argument and then choosing a side. I am choosing this topic because it is related to my major in engineering; mechanical engineers can specialize in aerospace, which is a key role in many aspects of the NASA space program. This subject interests me because I enjoy science, the wonders of space, and our solar system. This research topic really affects my passion for science and space because the outcome is the deciding factor on whether or not the American space program will continue their endeavors in the future. In the past, my love of space really spiked when I had an eighth grade astronomy class. I was able to see many pictures from space, which showed me the true beauty and the endless possibilities that space holds. These pictures and learning experience opened my eyes to the possible resources and innovations space holds for the human race and peaked my curiosity. I see myself being qualified to write about this topic due to the fact that my major relies heavily on physics and that our universe really interests me. 

In the article "How Much Does NASA Cost?" the main purpose of the article is just as it is stated in the title. Kimberly Amadeo states that NASA is such a small portion of the entire budget that it is a minute amount of funding compared to other government agencies. She shows the audience that along with the miniscule amount of money NASA receives compared to other agencies, the space program is also responsible for many technological advances in the everyday lives of humans. The author also shares what they will do with their share of the budget with one example being "NASA will replace the aging Hubble Space Telescope with the new James Webb Space Telescope, planned to launch in 2018" (Amadeo 1). The author is qualified for this article due to the fact that she is an expert in analyzing the United States economy. This makes her evidence reliable because she works with the national budget on a daily basis and knows how much funding goes to each government agency. 

In the article "Neil deGrasse Tyson: Invest in NASA, Invest in U.S. Government" the author, Chris Barth, interviews a credible and well known astrophysicist, Neil deGrasse Tyson, about the topic of NASA's future role in the United States government and the impact of the space program's existence in our future. In this article, Tyson brings up many important facts, such as with the growth of NASA, the economy has flourished from the spinoff products of their space endeavors, countries have passed the United States in the innovation of technology and will continue to do so, and the fact that without NASA, our world would not be as it is today. Tyson states "NASA innovates when it advances a frontier, and that innovations in science and technology are the engines of tomorrow's economy" (Barth 2). The astrophysicist that Chris Barth is interviewing in this article is extremely qualified to give solid evidence on this subject because he has spent his career working with these kinds of missions and the science behind it all. In fact, Neil deGrasse Tyson just recently wrote a book, Space Chronicles: Facing the Ultimate Frontier, which goes into detail and confronts this issue of the next chapter for NASA.  

In the article "The US Government Should Cut NASA Funding" the author, Jerry DeGroot, explains that space travel is a thing of the past and that although there is a possibility of resources being in outer space, there are too many issues here on Earth that needs to be solved before space is explored again. DeGroot states that NASA is living back in the glory days of space travel during the space race while also saying that too many people in the United States are without money or food, as explained in this quote, "An expensive mission to the moon (especially at a time of global recession) seems like lunacy when terrestrial frontiers such as disease, starvation and drought cry out for cash" (DeGroot 1). DeGroot strengthens his argument with the mention of a failed space mission that cost the government hundreds of millions of dollars. Jerry DeGroot is qualified to give reliable information on this topic because he is a University professor and author of Dark Side of the Moon: The Magnificent Madness of the American Lunar Quest. This provides credibility to the author because he has studied the American space program closely and knows the many endeavors of the program. 

This research question is a debatable topic because it was once such a fundamental part of our nation but is no longer that same agency, although, this space program has the potential to be great again and improve our economy. The biggest disagreement that I found in my sources were how to deal with the problems that we face here on Earth: one source says to face it head on with influences from Earth and not from space, while the other sources say that by increasing the funding on NASA the economy will be boosted. But both arguments want the same result ultimately, to solve the world's problems. These perspectives affect me in a positive way in the fact that I can now understand how the economy can be fixed with the increase in funding of NASA, where as before I could only see a solution through Earthly influences. In the future, I feel as though my research question is strong enough as it stands and that this is the appropriate question for this issue. 

