The research and development done by NASA has worked its way into American society and affected every citizen in some way. The issue with NASA is that their funding is less than 0.5% of the federal budget, which leads to downsizing of their programs and higher unemployment. The problem with this is that NASA does not have the money necessary to expand their space program and explore our solar system, which suppresses scientific research and technological development. This research and development increases efficiency in workplaces, brings about more opportunity for American citizens, and introduces a better quality of life for all of American society. Because NASA's budget is so low, technological progress is stifled and society can not move forward. Many people, such as Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Steven Dick, believe that there are important issues here on Earth that should be solved before we start exploring space, such as climate change, poverty, and world hunger. There is a belief that money that is allocated towards NASA is better spent solving the world's problems rather than aimlessly exploring the universe, and the government should focus on fixing the Earth before they try to leave it. Another argument against space exploration is that it is dangerous. The disintegration of the space shuttle Columbia is cited as a prime example of space exploration being dangerous. I believe that this counter-argument is a logical fallacy. There is no reason why we can not give NASA more funding and expand our space program while trying to fix our problems here on Earth. A robust space program could advance to the point where we can take heavy industry off the Earth and bring it into outer space, which satisfies both parties of the argument. (Cain) With more funding for NASA, they can do more research to make space travel safe for astronauts so we never have to see a disaster again. NASA should receive more funding because of their beneficial impact on the United States' economy, their ability to develop new technology to increase the quality of life for mankind, and their drive to satisfy the primal urge to discover what lies beyond the Earth.

There is no way to discover if there are other civilizations that lie beyond Earth without increasing the funding for NASA to allow them to explore the galaxy. This concept might seem like it is straight out of a science fiction novel, but it is an actual possibility that I think we should consider. There are also many dangers that lie beyond Earth, such as solar flares, asteroids, and geomagnetic storms. I think we need to fund NASA to build a defense against them. Solar flares and geomagnetic storms can damage Earth-orbiting satellites and even wipe out power grids on Earth. We should be prepared to protect ourselves from the dangers that lie in space, and the only way we can do so is if NASA receives more funding.

On July 20, 1969, history was made when Neil Armstrong took the first steps on the moon. The event gathered national attention and entered the United States into a new age: the Space Age. But even when NASA was first created, space travel has always been controversial because of the notion that it is not safe. On Friday, January 28, 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded just minutes after liftoff and killed the seven crew members aboard. Cheers of joy that erupted from the crowd were replaced by anguished cries after seeing the disaster, and the nation mourned for the lives lost. Former President Ronald Reagan gave a short speech, saying that "The future does not belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave." Reagan emphasized that this disaster would not set the nation back, but rather we should move forward and learn from our mistakes. NASA cannot make the same mistakes that caused the space shuttle Columbia and space shuttle Challenger tragedies because they now know what caused them and can work towards making sure it never happens again.  The Challenger explosion was caused by the destruction of the O-rings, seals which prevent hot gases hot gases from leaking into joints, which caused the external fuel tank to break off and the space shuttle fell apart. In response to this accident, civilians were not allowed to fly on space crafts for twenty two years and many explorations into space were put on hold. The space shuttle Challenger was a symbol for American ingenuity and success, but the Challenger explosion eliminated public optimism towards civilians traveling in space. A similar incident happened on February 1, 2003, when the space shuttle Columbia disintegrated upon reentry of the Earth's atmosphere, causing the deaths of seven astronauts. The debris from the explosion fell onto sparsely populated regions of Texas and luckily no one was hurt. Because of this tragedy the space shuttle fleet was retired and focus was redirected onto deep space exploration and the use of private spacecraft. These disasters changed public opinion of space flight and made people believe that it was dangerous not only for the lives of the astronauts but for people back on Earth. 

Although technological failure is a big reason why these tragedies occurred, the root of the problem lies elsewhere. There were many organizational causes of the accident, including a restriction of resources, pressure to stay on flight schedule, and a lack of communication between NASA's staff. The issues that caused both the Challenger and Columbia disasters were strikingly similar and could be avoided if NASA's staff was paying more attention. The organizational causes of the accident could be attributed to a budget that was too low to meet their needs. The team behind the space shuttle program was forced to do more with less, and led to a downsizing of the shuttle's workforce and an outsourcing of the safety oversight for the shuttle. Schedule pressures and lack of communication comes from NASA's poor safety culture. Concerns were not voiced and important information was overlooked that could compromise the safety of the astronauts aboard the space shuttle Columbia. Another factor that led to these tragedies is that safety in space travel is partially learned through trial and error. In the words of former President Ronald Reagan, “Sometimes, when we reach for the stars, we fall short. But we must pick ourselves up again and press on despite the pain.”

NASA has a bigger effect on the United States’ economy than most people think. The development of new technology is strongly correlated with the national rate of economic growth. ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿Jerome Schnee, a teacher at Rutgers University, discovered that "about 90 percent of the long-term increase in output per capita in the U.S. has been attributable to technological change.” A midwest research institute found out through a study that $25 billion was spent on civilian space research and development during the period of time between 1959 and 1969, and returned in total $181 billion. NASA’s various projects in the past and in the future also increase employment rates. It was estimated that if $1 billion from the federal budget was transferred to NASA, manufacturing output would increase by .1% and manufacturing employment would increase by 20,000 workers.

NASA’s technological developments are not only beneficial to their programs but are also important to society. The Space Shuttle program was comprised of a diverse staff of different nationalities and genders. In her article “NASA Reflects America’s Changing Opportunities; NASA Impacts US Culture,” Jennifer Rose-Nazzal writes “No longer regarded as a “manned” spaceflight in the most literal sense of the term, the shuttle ushered in a new era of “human” spaceflight that is here to stay.” Having a diverse workplace gives disenfranchised people more opportunity to work and be successful. People outside of the workplace also benefited from these programs. There are so many household items everyone uses today that were created through NASA’s research and development, including memory foam mattresses, fuel cells, satellite communications, and computers. Eric Schmidt, Executive Chairman of  Alphabet, Inc. and author of The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of  People, Nations, and Business, believes that technology will “bring gains in productivity, health, education, quality of life, and myriad other avenues in the physical world - and this will be true for everyone, from the most elite users to those at the base of the economic pyramid.” Technological progress affects mankind as a whole and is beneficial to connecting all corners of the globe. More technological development also means a more scientifically literate society, where there are more people interested in being scientists and engineers, which benefits society.

Since the dawn of time, humans have looked to the sky and wondered what lies beyond Earth. It is a primal urge and a curiosity embedded in every person. CJ Miozzi, a writer for the Escapist magazine, writes that “By funding a space program… We continue the proud human tradition of exploration, the eternal zeitgeist fueled by unbridled ambition that has pushed our civilization to achieve things once thought impossible.” Space travel is a part of human nature, and all successful civilizations have been willing to explore to stay alive and adapt to their surroundings. Neil DeGrasse Tyson argues in his article “The Case for Space: Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars” that “the rationale for our space program has as much to do with national security and the economy as it does with the intangible, indefinable spirit of exploration that is written into our DNA.” There are many questions about the universe that can only be answered if we explore the stars.

There is a belief that NASA is dangerous because of the space shuttle Columbia and space shuttle Challenger disasters. Although it is true that space travel is dangerous, it is necessary for society. We should not sacrifice NASA’s long term goals because it is dangerous. The astronauts that go into space prepare for the worst and go on their missions knowing exactly what can happen to them. With a higher budget, space travel will become safer because NASA can have the amount of staff they need for all of their projects and will not have any shortages of materials. Space travel has  not been perfected yet and will become safer throughout time because NASA will have more experience and can learn from their previous mistakes. 

Another argument against funding NASA is that there are more important things that we need to deal with on Earth before we travel space. This is an example of sacrificing long term goals for short ones, and is a false dilemma fallacy. There is no reason why we cannot do both at the same time. Taxes would not go up to give NASA more funding if the money was taken from another governmental program. The Department of Defense receives a budget that is 35 times higher than NASA’s budget. There is so much frivolous spending in America, and that money is better put to use by funding NASA.

There is an easy solution to supplying NASA with more funding that will keep everyone happy. Currently, NASA’s budget sits at $19 billion, or about one-half of a percent of the federal budget. This means that for every dollar an American spends on taxes, half of a penny’s worth of their money is directed towards NASA’s budget. Fortunately, taxes do not have to be raised to revive NASA. CJ Miozzi writes that the Department of Defense received of 35 times the amount of funding that NASA received in 2014. Excessive funding to other departments of the government such as the Department of Defense can be cut and the money can be funneled towards NASA. For this to happen, you would need to have enough Congressmen vote to increase NASA’s budget and also have the President’s approval. Goodwin writes about how a lower budget leads to a downsizing of programs and privatization of shuttle missions. NASA’s current budget would not be able to support some proposed ideas such as a trip to Mars or more powerful telescopes. Because NASA’s budget is dropping every year, we are seeing a lack of technological progress and witnessing the department die.

NASA’s low budget is bad not only for the space program, but also for their employees and the everyday citizen. Employees suffer because they are laid off of work when programs are cut. Jennifer Ross-Nazzal writes about how the first shuttle program opened up many opportunities for women and minorities to get jobs and compete in a workplace that was dominated by white men at the time. Since NASA’s budget was much higher back in the 1960’s, these people were given the opportunity work and NASA became the model for a diverse workplace. A lower budget also means NASA does not have enough money to make significant research and cannot develop new technology. Eric Schmidt argues that a technologically advanced society brings about more efficiency, more opportunity, and a better quality of life for everyone. 

As a student in college, you are using so many products of NASA’s research. CJ Miozzi gives many examples in his article. “Those cordless tools in your cabinet? They evolved from technology developed from the Apollo lunar landing program. Enjoy sleeping on that memory foam mattress? Developed from technology designed to improve crash protection for airplane passengers.” Without more funding, NASA will not be able to develop any more of these technologies. From the tennis shoes that you walk to class with, to the tires on your car you use to drive home with, NASA has made many innovations that increase the quality of your life and keep you safe.  

We will not see any change if there is not a call to action. Change starts locally, on campus. We can gather students together and spread information on why NASA should receive more funding with pamphlets or through social media. Students can create petitions and amass signatures to gain national attention on the issue. If enough people contact their state representative, they will realize that this is an important issue and hopefully sponsor a bill which will be backed by their constituents. If the bill passes with a majority in the house, it will be passed to the Senate and more research will be done on the issue, and it will be debated. What NASA needs is more attention and more research on the issue so change can happen.

In conclusion, NASA should receive a higher budget for their positive effects on society. They have successfully integrated themselves as a part of American culture and inspired generations of people to pursue their dreams of being scientists, doctors, and engineers. People who argue that NASA should not receive more funding are not looking at the bigger picture and do not understand the impact that NASA has on society, including increased efficiency, a higher quality of life, and more opportunity for American citizens. NASA’s research and development not only brings advanced technology to society but also stimulates the American economy. Without NASA we would not have many inventions that we use every day, such as tennis shoes and scratch resistant glasses. To make change, we can gather as students of USC and start clubs and petitions, anything to gain attention to the issue and eventually bring it to Congress. As of now, there is no way of telling if there is life outside of our solar system. The only way to find out is if NASA receives more funding and we revive a dying program.
