Eisner1

Jonathan Eisner ENC-1102 Annotated Bibliography

On the Public Opinion of Funding N.A.S.A. There is a rather ubiquitous debate going on among many political and scientific communities today about the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, abbreviated as N.A.S.A. This is the United States agency that focuses on space research and exploration. As the decades have passed since the Cold War with the Soviet Union, the funding as a percentage of the federal budget has been decreasing. This has led to debates on whether N.A.S.A. should keep seeing cuts or if it should see funding increases. Those who support cutting the funds often state that N.A.S.A. is too expensive during the current federal deficit; that it is ineffective; that it does not focus on its goals; or that the private industry is just more effective. Those supporting seeing funding increases often state that N.A.S.A. funding is very small as it is and that cuts to it would not help the fix the federal deficit in any way; that N.A.S.A. provides economic stimulation; that it has and will keep innovating new technology; that is a necessity for human survival; or that it inspires the youth of today. This debate often takes place in a political environment, such as Congress. However, this work focuses specifically on articles and posts made by those not taking part in such environments. These writers may be scientists or those interested on the topic of increasing or decreasing N.A.S.A.s funding. Statements made by politicians, such as Congress members, will not be covered. It is structured this way to show the various views of non-political participants in the debate. This being said, the writers of these posts and articles can still talk about the

Eisner2

politics of the debate. The point of this work is to allow easy access to the different types of arguments in the debate to the everyday person trying to learn about them.

Biddington Adjunct Professor, B. 2012. NASA, we have a problem: why America is lost in space. [online] Available at: http://theconversation.com/nasa-we-have-a-problem-why-americais-lost-in-space-5396 [Accessed: 16 Oct 2013]. In his online article, Brett Biddington, consultant to the Australian government and the private sector on space matters and also chair of the Space Industry Association of Australia, provides his opinion on why N.A.S.A. is receiving funding cuts and what changes it should make to preserve itself. In his opening comments on the topic, Biddington reveals which side he leans to in the debate by stating that the Obama Administration is seeking to reduce NASAs funding by US$59m to US$17.7 billion a reduction of just 0.03%, not that you would know that from the furor. (Biddington). This points out his opinion that people are overreacting to the budget cuts. Biddington also reveals something unique about his view: the fact that he thinks N.A.S.A. should play an important role, but needs to change a lot to do that. He does this by saying that Some wiser heads may see beyond preservation of the status quo and seek to restore NASA as an institution which innovates, leads and inspires. Sadly, these elected representatives are likely to be in a minority. (Biddington). After this, Biddington brings up two pro-N.A.S.A. arguments stating that we spend much more on other programs and that N.A.S.A. brings in economic revenue. He responds to them and also discusses what he thinks about the current state of N.A.S.A.: These arguments miss the point. For all the good that NASA may have done in the past, today its an agency that

Eisner3

cant explain in simple, clear and compelling terms, what it does, what it seeks to do and why. (Biddington). This further emphasizes his view that N.A.S.A. needs to change. Biddington also provides two things that he thinks must change for N.A.S.A. to be successful. He states that: For a start, NASA needs to embrace collaboration with China and other spacefaring nations something thats been limited thus far and that the agency also needs to approach Congress and the Obama Administration about the negative impacts on US science, technology and innovation created by the extremely strict laws which seek to prevent US space technologies from being available to others. (Biddington). This would imply that his main point is that N.A.S.A. is too enclosed from other nations and industries. Finally, Biddington concludes his article by referring to his ideas on how N.A.S.A. should change: In this there is a huge role for NASA, should it have the courage to take such a vision to the president, the Congress and the US taxpayer. (Biddington). Biddingtons article was unique in that it was not completely polarized to one side. It provided efficient examples of mistakes, their consequences, and how they can be fixed when it comes to the role of N.A.S.A. It was also useful as an outsiders opinion on the issue, with Biddington working in Australia. Chow, D. 2013. Boosting NASA's Budget Will Help Fix Economy: Neil deGrasse Tyson. [online] Available at: http://www.space.com/15310-nasa-budget-future-space-exploration.html [Accessed: 9 Oct 2013]. In her blog-post, journalist Denise Chow writes about Neil DeGrasse Tysons view on the N.A.S.A. budget. The references she makes to Tysons views come from his April 17, 2012 speech at the 28th National Space Symposium. Tyson, a renowned astronomer, space exploration advocate, and director of the Hayden Planetarium, argues that the

Eisner4

N.A.S.A. budget should be doubled. He references the cultural and economic benefits to increasing the N.A.S.A. budget and also explains the methods in which he thinks the funding should be allotted. Chow references how Tyson links N.A.S.A. to innovation and his statement that innovation drives economy. (qtd. by Chow). Chow mentions Tysons explanation of N.A.S.A.s cultural impact by stating that he spoke about how space has influenced culture ranging from how the fins on early rockets inspired fins on automobiles in the 1950s, to how the Apollo 8 mission's iconic picture taken in 1968 of Earth rising above the horizon of the moon led to a greater appreciation for our planet and the need to protect it. (Chow). Tyson thinks that funding N.A.S.A. will make it more prominent in modern news and education, thus inspiring many people to innovate as it does. Finally, Chow explains Tysons approach to the methods in which N.A.S.A. should be funded. She states that Tyson promoted building a core fleet of launch vehicles that can be customized for a variety of missions and for a range of purposes. (Chow). Chow then adds in her opinion of this by stating that Having an available suite of launch vehicles will open up access to space for a wider range of purposes, which will, in turn, benefit the country's economy and innovation. (Chow). This reveals Chows view that N.A.S.A. should, indeed, have an increase in government funding. This blog post was useful because it focuses on the statements on one of the most influential space exploration advocates of modern times and also provides possible steps for N.A.S.A. to take in the future Diaz, J. 2013. Why the Government Must Spend More Money On NASA. [online] Available at: http://gizmodo.com/5962595/why-the-government-must-spend-more-money-on-nasa [Accessed: 21 Oct 2013].

Eisner5

Jesus Diaz, blogger on current affairs in the astronomy and cosmology communities, talks in his blog post about why the world needs and has needed N.A.S.A. He states his view on the topic directly at the beginning of the blog: the government should, must, dedicate a lot more money to NASA. And there's no way around it. (Diaz). This illuminates the theme of his blog that N.A.S.A. does not just have benefits, but is a necessity to humanity. He further emphasizes this by saying some of NASA's work is fundamental to our survival as species and then compares it to the private space industry by asking what private company is doing that, again? (Diaz). This shows that he thinks no private company could replace N.A.S.A. After this, Diaz goes on to list various achievements and innovations made my N.A.S.A., such as discovering the hole in the OZone layer and also putting rovers on Mars. He then points out the amount of funding that N.A.S.A. receives and shows the way he feels about the funding cuts: worse: the dolts ask for cuts in NASA spending, even while NASA spending is already ridiculously small. (Diaz). His tone in this quote shows that he thinks funding cuts to N.A.S.A. arent just bad for the country, but are also pointless economically. In ending his blog, Diaz states that N.A.S.A. benefits the economy, culture, and knowledge of the world. He uses the first picture ever taken of the Earth as a whole as an example of N.A.S.A. helping the world gain more understanding of our universe, not because it taught humans that the Earth was a sphere people knew that for centuries - but because it made that fact really mean something society. This blog post was helpful because it lists specific benefits of N.A.S.A. that arent frequently mentioned in other places, such as the first full picture of Earth.

Eisner6

Endr, A. 2012. 5 Reasons why NASA budget cuts are killing America [Infographics] . [online] vAvailable at: http://aaronendre.com/2012/08/21/5-reasons-why-nasa-budget-cuts-arekilling-america-infographics/ [Accessed: 11 Oct 2013]. In his article, Aaron Endr, a writer for PR & Marketing, lists the reasons as to why budget cuts for N.A.S.A. are a mistake for the United States. In the opening of the article, Endr reveals his view by making the sarcastic and ironic comment that NASA helped to usher in a promising new future in the 1960s and it was rewarded with a rapidly-eroding budget. (Endr). His tone shows that he is rather upset with the budget cuts. The way in which Endr structures his argument is by providing a bullet list of the 5 reasons why he thinks the United States needs N.A.S.A. His 5 reasons are Technology development; Training Scientists; Defense; Resource Discovery; the big questions. (Endr). For each one, he puts an example of their benefits. For technology, he lists all the important technology that N.A.S.A. has invented, such as medical ultrasounds. For training scientists, he states how N.A.S.A. inspires many to pursue careers as engineers and scientists. He also states that N.A.S.A. can help the United States keep a good defense and help the world keep a defense or plan in case of projected impact by asteroids. Further, he states that N.A.S.A. can also help humans obtain large amounts of new resources. Lastly, he says that N.A.S.A. is the best way to find out if we are the only intelligent life in the universe. He ends his article with a pro-N.A.S.A. quote from Bill Nye, a notable scientist, engineer, and N.A.S.A. advocate. This article provided a description of how N.A.S.A. has influenced modern culture and society. It was used because of that focus.

Eisner7

Friedman, H. 2013. NASA Simply Stopped Being a Priority. [online] Available at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/howard-steven-friedman/nasa-funding-federalbudget_b_1464070.html [Accessed: 20 Oct 2013]. In his online article, Steven Howard Friedman, statistician and economist at Columbia University, discusses the change of N.A.S.A. funding over time to show why he believes it should continue to be funded and why funding cuts will have negative consequences. Discussing the retirement of the N.A.S.A. space shuttle Enterprise, Friedman states that while there are some free enterprise endeavors set to take very wealthy people out to space, these efforts are miniscule compared to the project that brought humans to the moon. (Friedman). This emphasis on the importance of a N.A.S.A. project begins to show his pro-N.A.S.A. leaning. Friedman also uses a graph showing the percentage that N.A.S.A. played in the federal budget over the past half-century as a way to show its achievements compared to its funding. He points out that There was a burst of funding and scientific activity in the 1960's, leading up to the 1969 moon landing and then funding dried up. (Friedman). He also refers to 2012, where funding has been close to its lowest (as a percent of federal budget), and says here we are in 2012. We heard George Bush talk about a mission to Mars but no money was provided. (Friedman). These 2 points are made to imply that, as funding makes less of a percentage of the federal budget, N.A.S.A. is able to achieve less and less. He further brings the reader into a current perspective by talking about the space programs of other nations: meanwhile, China and India plan to send missions to the Moon in the next few years while the Russians talk about landing people on the moon. (Friedman). Furthermore, he refers to a discussion he heard and then builds on this topic by elaborating the effects of it: the

Eisner8

speaker went on to contrast the United States' short term focus on landing on the moon with the long-term plans that the Chinese have for space exploration. He envisioned in the next 10 years America waking up to a panic, much like it did when Sputnik was launched, but that America would not be able to catch up to China's space technology in the same way that a decade of major investment pushed America past the Russian efforts in the 1960's. (Friedman). He does this to illuminate the possibility that cutting N.A.S.A. funding can be one of the biggest mistakes that the United States could ever make. He further discusses the seriousness of this possibility by concluding his article with 2 questions: as we think of America over the span of centuries and not from budget cycle to budget cycle, will we look back and ask ourselves whether the decision to abandon space was a wise decision? Or will historians look back and identify this decision as a textbook example of when America sacrificed long-term strategic goals for short-term interests? (Friedman). Friedmans article was helpful because it uses a cause-and-effect approach to the N.A.S.A. budget cuts. The graph that he uses helps to show N.A.S.A.s accomplishments compared to its funding. It is also helpful because it makes references to the space programs of other nations. Galant, R. 2013. Bill Nye: U.S. risks losing its space edge. [online] Available at: http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/02/opinion/nye-planetsexploration/index.html?eref=rss_mostpopular [Accessed: 20 Oct 2013]. Richard Galant, writer for CNN, discusses in his online article the opinion of Bill Nye on the funding of N.A.S.A. Bill Nye is renowned in the science and engineering communities. He is a mechanical engineering student from Cornell University and was also taught by Carl Sagan, one of the most well-known

Eisner9

astronomers/astrophysicists/cosmologists in the world. This article focuses specifically on the opinion of Bill Nye, rather than Richard Galant. Speaking on the topic of the N.A.S.A. funding cuts, Bill Nye states but investment in space stimulates society, it stimulates it economically, it stimulates it intellectually, and it gives us all passion. Everyone, red state, blue state, everyone supports space exploration. (qtd. In Galant). Stating this reveals his opinion that cutting N.A.S.A.s funding is something that shouldnt be an option. The N.A.S.A. funding cuts that Nye is specifically upset about are those towards its planetary exploration research. He states what he thinks about these cuts: this wouldn't matter. Except it's not a faucet. It's not a spigot you can turn off and on. You stop planetary exploration, those people who do that extraordinary work are going to have to go do something else. (qtd. In Galant). He also believes that cuts to that research now could cause damage that would take decades to recover from. Nye then goes on to talk about the possibility of an asteroid colliding with Earth, and brings N.A.S.A. into the topic: so what we want to do is to develop the capability to redirect, to deflect an asteroid, ever so slightly. If you're going to do that, you've got to have space exploration. (qtd. In Galant). He thinks it is, therefore, a requirement to have a good space exploration program for the sake of mankind. Ending his discussion, Nye mentions what he thinks of those who believe that we should focus our efforts solely on Earth and not space: if you stop exploring, if you say, 'I don't care; I'm not going to look up and out and beyond the horizon,' what does that say about you? It's not good. (qtd. In Galant). This shows his strong passion for the topic. Galants article was useful because it focused on the opinion of one of the most influential advocates of space exploration.

Eisner10

Furthermore, Nyes discussion was specific, rather than broad; it focused on one specific aspect of the funding cuts: that of the space exploration program. Gough, M. 2013. Dont Lavish Funds on NASA. [online] Available at: http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/dont-lavish-funds-nasa [Accessed: 21 Oct 2013]. Michael Gough, director of science and risk studies at the Cato Institute, uses his online commentary to discuss how he thinks the private and government space industry should be structured. In the beginning of his commentary, Gough explains his views on N.A.S.A.s relationship to the private industry: successful or unsuccessful, NASAs programs have crowded out commercial and nonprofit explorers. Should NASA funding end, private sources would take up the slack for worthwhile ventures into space. (Gough). He is stating here that, even if some N.A.S.A. projects have been useful, we do not need N.A.S.A. to accomplish feats in space. He goes on to explain some of the failures of N.A.S.A. Specifically, he discusses the shuttle program and the International Space Station and how they could be made much cheaper by the private space industry. He further talks about the International Space Station and offers his opinion that it is a rather useless project: Martin Marietta Corporations CEO Norman Augustine, who chaired a Presidential Advisory Commission in 1991, said that much of the research planned for the station can be conducted on Earth or by unmanned robots. (Gough). In concluding his commentary, Gough states what he thinks is a better plan for N.A.S.A. and the private space industry: considering the huge costs, miniscule payoffs, and risks to astronauts in the manned program, the appropriate decision about the shuttle and the station is clear. Congress should cut off their funding and sell the shuttle fleet and the

Eisner11

station, or whatever part of it has been built, to private purchasers who will, if nothing else, operate them in a fashion to recover their costs. (Gough). He explains that he thinks N.A.S.A. should be cut only to do research, while the private space industry does the transportation and exploration. This commentary was helpful because it shows that the N.A.S.A. funding debate has been around even since the 1990s, seeing as it was written in 1997. Grichar, J. 2004. Wielding the Budget Axe: It's Time to Abolish NASA LewRockwell.com. [online] Available at: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/jim-grichar-aka-exxgman/wielding-the-budget-axe-its-time-to-abolish-nasa/ [Accessed: 21 Oct 2013]. In his online article, Jim Grichar, former economist for the federal government, points out the various reasons as to why he believes N.A.S.A. should not be funded. The main theme in his article is that taxpayers suffer because of N.A.S.A. He starts off his article with a straightforward statement about how he feels about N.A.S.A.: but neither the President nor supporters of this revamped NASA space program have come up with any real justification for continuing a multi-billion dollar boondoggle other than saying that it is our destiny to explore the solar system and beyondas that appears to be the only reason to continue funding NASA, taxpayers should demand that the whole program be abolished to reduce the federal budget deficit. (Grichar). This immediately underscores his theme that the taxpayers suffer because of N.A.S.A. Grichar proceeds to discuss the effects of N.A.S.A. funding on the economy as the years pass. His view is that N.A.S.A.s funding will increase exponentially until it is a sever hindrance to the economy. He then brings up a common pro-N.A.S.A. argument that N.A.S.A. has been the reason that much of todays technology exists. He attacks this argument by stating

Eisner12

that thus, the argument that the civilian space program or for that matter any government research program has led to major benefits for consumers is not as simple nor nearly as clear cut as the proponents make it. The fact is that most of those benefits were provided by the private sector, which used otherwise useless technology or revamped that technology to make it valuable to consumers. (Grichar). He is a strong proponent of the private space industry and believes it is the true reason most of the technology today exists. Grichar ends the article with a final note about what he believes society must do in regards to N.A.S.A.: in a time of record and possibly rising budget deficits, the Congress ought to commit the savings from NASA towards reducing the deficit. Such a move would not only save the public money but would also alert the various lobbyists and other porkmeisters that the days of being conned into throwing taxpayers money away on useless projects was ending. (Grichar). This article was useful in that it covers a broad scope of arguments against N.A.S.A. and also provides a driving statement towards the public stating what the public needs to do. Levinger, J. 2013. Should we cut NASA funding? - The Tech. [online] Available at: http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/nasacp.html [Accessed: 11 Oct 2013]. In his online article, Josh Levinger, staff columnist for MITs The Teach, provides a highly pro-N.A.S.A. argument while also attempting to bring up the opposing view. He starts this by comparing the two points of view: To the critics of the space program, greedy astronauts fill their pockets with our hard earned dollars and blast off into space, leaving our children with only rocket fumes for lunch. But to its proponents, space exploration represents a relatively small expenditure that brings positive real world impacts in the form of cutting edge research, crucial data on weather and climate change,

Eisner13

thousands of jobs, and more than a few spinoff technologies. The truth is somewhere in between. (Levinger). Levinger then brings up a common anti-N.A.S.A. argument that N.A.S.A. is just too expensive. He argues against this by stating that N.A.S.A.s funding is .5% of the federal budget and that even if you consider the space program to be a waste, its so far from our federal budgets biggest line item that a little cost-benefit analysis quickly leads you to more fertile ground. (Levinger). The next anti-N.A.S.A. argument he brings up is that while the government funds N.A.S.A., many around the world, such as those in Africa, are suffering extreme poverty. Levinger acknowledges this, but points out that to pretend that its the fault of the space program that people are still starving in Africa is disingenuous at best. (Levinger). Levinger then brings up a point stated by those arguing against N.A.S.A. that he agrees with: space critics are right about one thing, NASA has been rudderless for the last few years. (Levinger). However, he then further underscores his pro-N.A.S.A. view by referring to the previous N.A.S.A. funding. He does this by saying though charged by the Bush administration to extend the reach of humanity back to the Moon and on to Mars, it was given no additional funding to do so. The civilian space budget has been effectively capped for the last two decades; all aeronautical, biological, and exploration related research fight for the same pool of money. (Levinger). This point not only defends N.A.S.A., but also attacks the idea of cutting the funding. After this, Levinger talks about what a government-established committee concluded about N.A.S.A., while he also shows what he thinks about the conclusion: They indicated that we cannot achieve our lofty goals on the current funding without sacrificing safety, and a new vision is needed. The Obama Administration took this advice, and what they propose is something that should make

Eisner14

even a cold libertarian heart skip a beat. (Levinger). When Levinger says that the new plan would make even a cold libertarian heart skip a beat, he is stating that he thinks the plan is very extreme with privatization, while also attaching a negative connotation with that extremism. (Levinger). In concluding his article, Levinger discusses a more personal reason as to why he also wants N.A.S.A. to be funded. He states that the reason I support the space program is a base and selfish one; we need a backup plan, because this world wont last forever. (Levinger). This shows that he thinks funding N.A.S.A. is a necessity to us. This article was useful due to the fact that it provides diverse examples of why a person might support the funding of N.A.S.A. This is shown by the Levingers personal reasons for supporting the funding, his economic reasons, and also his opinions on the planned funding. Mccullagh, D. 2013. Do we need NASA? - CNET News. [online] Available at: http://news.cnet.com/2009-11397-6211308.html [Accessed: 20 Oct 2013]. Declan McCullagh, staff writer for CNET news.com, provides an in-depth argument against the funding of N.A.S.A in his article that is part of a series examining the past 50 years of space exploration. McCullagh starts off his article by reviewing the impact that the private industry has had on aviation during the past century. After listing achievements of the private industry, he brings up N.A.S.A. while also showing his opinion of it: Fifty years after Sputnik 1's launch in October 1957, mankind has set foot on precisely one other world (a moon, at that), the space shuttle has at best a 1-in-50 chance of disaster upon each launch, and a completed space station is still a few years out. Since the last moon landing 35 years ago, in fact, mankind has not ventured beyond low Earth orbit again. (McCullagh). This comment reveals that views the achievements

Eisner15

of N.A.S.A. to be minimal compared to those of the private industry. Furthermore, McCullagh reveals that he not only thinks N.A.S.A. has been unsuccessful, but has also had negative consequences, when he refers to his views and the views of many entrepreneurs/capitalists: in fact, many of them say NASA has become more of a hindrance than a help. (McCullagh). McCullagh then proceeds to list various cases in which N.A.S.A. has made mistakes or abandoned goals, including being technologically behind. He also references a Time Magazine article that listed failures of the Space Shuttle Program. This leads him to introduce the role of the private space industry in current space-related affairs. He talks about the advantages of the private space industry and then asks 2 questions: but if private industry can reliably transport people and cargo to space, is it still necessary to funnel $17.6 billion a year to NASA? Or could that money be better spent on, say, tax breaks to encourage the development of a world-class private space industry? (McCullagh). He answers these questions with references to others that share his view. He talks about phasing out N.A.S.A. so that the private space industry could take over and make space travel more efficient economically. McCullagh ends his article with a quote by free-market advocator Ed Hudgins: The West has been settled, and it was mostly settled by private individuals getting out there through private means. (qtd. in McCullagh). This is a way of further emphasizing his view that the private industry is the most successful way to go with making innovations and accomplishing major feats. This was an important article to discuss because it contrasts between N.A.S.A. and the private space industry now and in the past. Mclain, R. 2012. The Case For NASA: Refuting The Arguments Against The Agency Independent Voter Network. [online] Available at: http://ivn.us/2012/05/30/the-case-for-

Eisner16

nasa-refuting-the-arguments-against-theagency/?utm_source=ivn&utm_medium=featured&utm_content=prevnext&utm_campai gn=opt-beta-v-1-0 [Accessed: 11 Oct 2013]. Ryan McLain, a political science and economy commentator, discusses in his blog his opinion as to why N.A.S.A. should receive a funding increase. The structure in which he makes his argument is by listing all counterarguments and then refuting them. The first argument he references is the one by N.A.S.A. critics that N.A.S.A. costs too much and is sending the country into a deficit. However, he argues against this by stating that N.A.S.A.s budget was merely 0.53% of the Federal Budget in 2010 and is projected to slowly drop. (McLain). Afterwards, he compares the N.A.S.A. funding to that of other government programs and states how they take up a much larger portion of the governments spending. He uses a metaphor to point out that N.A.S.A.s funding makes up a small fraction of the governments spending: thats the same as 2.65 drops of a 500 milliliter bottle of water. (McLain). McLain then brings up the second prominent argument against N.A.S.A. This is that N.A.S.A. has never really achieved much other than a moon landing. He quickly refutes this with a list of major technologies that N.A.S.A. invented directly or indirectly, such as satellites, G.P.S., C.A.T. scans, and M.R.I.s. The argument in which McClain spends the most time refuting is the third one. This is that we dont need N.A.S.A. when we have private space companies such as Space-X, who do not require tax money. He uses a detailed argument to refute this. The first way he refutes it is by saying that what this argument fails to account for is the fact that a private companys only goal is profit. (McLain). He further supports this by stating that entering low earth orbit has repeatedly been done by government space

Eisner17

programs and has been proven to be as safe as space exploration can get. A private company would never expand beyond this region without serious incentives, because the risk would outweigh the potential reward. (McLain). Lastly, he states that while 7.5% of astronauts have died doing their duty which many critics bring up future N.A.S.A. missions would use robots and probes rather than humans. He ends the post by adding in his own opinion that we cannot reach further accomplishments in space without a fully funded N.A.S.A. This blog post was used because it shows many of the popular antiN.A.S.A. arguments and various pro-N.A.S.A. counterarguments. Pangburn, D. 2011. 5 Reasons Obama Should Not Slash NASA Budget. [online] Available at: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/154689/5-reasons-obama-should-not-slash-nasabudget/ [Accessed: 21 Oct 2013]. DJ Pangburn, contributor for VICE, uses a blog to make an outline stating 5 reasons as to why N.A.S.A. should not see funding cuts. He starts his post by bringing up the argument over how much N.A.S.A. is costing the federal government. He compares N.A.S.A. to other innovators to bring the spending amount into perspective: Those who defend the space exploration budget are constantly finding new categories of spending which exceeds the NASA allocation: Americans spend more on pet food than they do on space exploration; Americans spend more on cosmetics than on space; Gillette Razor company spent more to develop and market their new shaver than it costs to fly the space shuttle for a year, and on and on. (Pangburn). After making the point that he believes N.A.S.A. makes little impact on the federal deficit, Pangburn goes straight into his argument by listing the 5 reasons why he thinks N.A.S.A. should be funded. His 5 reasons are: humans need a place to go to if Earth is in danger; Earth might run out of

Eisner18

resources that we could find in other worlds; researching new worlds and space help support human ambition; it is human to explore; and space/astronomy will help us find other worlds. For the first point, he mentions the possibility of an asteroid colliding with Earth or nuclear war destroying the planet. His second point discusses the possible collaboration of N.A.S.A. and the private space industry to mine resources from other worlds. His points on human ambition and on exploration being a human characteristic both discuss how the human desire to learn and find new things cannot be held back and must be allowed to flourish. His last point discusses current N.A.S.A. telescopes and future ones. He states that they need funding so that we can discover new worlds the first step leading to the other 4 points. This article was useful in that it focuses solely on the possible necessities of having N.A.S.A., rather than just helpful benefits. Spudis, P. 2013. Would More Money Improve NASA?. [online] Available at: http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2009/07/would-more-money-improve-nasa/ [Accessed: 21 Oct 2013]. Paul Spudis, Senior Staff Scientist at the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, uses his blog post to make a rather uncommon argument against the funding of N.A.S.A. For most of the post, Pudis talks briefly about the change in N.A.S.A. over the past few decades. Specifically, he states that it had a high funding due to the fact that it needed to be built up and also had to compete with the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Afterwards, Spudis begins to explain his opinion by showing how N.A.S.A. has functioned for the past 15 years. After mentioning a plan that former President George H. W. Bush set for N.A.S.A., Spudis references a study that N.A.S.A. did to see if the plan was feasible. He states: in other words, the agency response to the Presidential directive was Give us

Eisner19

more money. (Spudis). Spudis then refers to a plan set for N.A.S.A. by former President George W. Bush and describes N.A.S.A.s response: once again the agencys response to a new exploration challenge was to close ranks and follow the Apollo template, repeating the refrain, Give us more money. (Spudis). In describing N.A.S.A.s responses this way, he reveals his opinion that N.A.S.A. only wants more and more money. He says that N.A.S.A. is ignoring the goals that people think it has; and he argues this by saying that in their urgency to exit the Moon as rapidly as possible and get to Mars, NASA is side-stepping the principal reason they were to go to the Moon in the first place to learn the skills needed to live and work productively on another world. Is it any wonder that Congress and the public are uneasy about their space agency and its plea for more money? (Spudis). He concludes this argument by stating that the public and Congress will not support funding N.A.S.A. more until it changes. This blog post was important because it had a less common argument. Rather than labelling N.A.S.A. as being unsuccessful, it accuses N.A.S.A. of being deceiving. This is a view that is not as popular in the current N.A.S.A. funding debate. Taylor, R. 2011. The Case For Defunding NASA. [online] Available at: http://www.policymic.com/articles/54/the-case-for-defunding-nasa [Accessed: 11 Oct 2013]. Robert Taylor, writer for the PolicyMic, argues against the funding of N.A.S.A. in his internet article. Central to his argument is the cost of funding N.A.S.A. and the benefits of privatizing the space industry. He first adds his opinion by commenting on the retiring of the shuttle Endeavor: I am relieved that Endeavor will soon be out of the heavens and retired in the California Science Center. (Taylor). He then introduces the opening of his

Eisner20

argument by stating that N.A.S.A. takes $17 billion a year from taxpayers and goes to waste, while the private industry can minimize costs and maximize profits. He further adds in his opinion by giving a plan for the future: the best thing that could happen for the future of space exploration, discovery, and information would be for NASA to retire all of its shuttles, send those billions back to the American people, and open the sky up to the free market. (Taylor). Lastly, he argues against the pro-N.A.S.A. view that N.A.S.A. has helped the world with innovation and the creation of numerous technologies. He states that most of the technologies were actually the result of the private sector and that N.A.S.A. itself is also a misallocation of labor. By saying that it is a misallocation of labor, he means that labor under government programs is minimally effective, while private sector labor is much more effective and, therefore, innovates more. He ends the article by repeating his view that N.A.S.A. is not worth $17 billion per year. This was a useful internet article because it discusses many of the economic benefits that the private space industry could possibly give if N.A.S.A. was defunded. Tickle, G. 2013. Russias Putting $52 Billion Into Their Space Program, Would Be Nice If We Could Fund NASA. [online] Available at: http://www.geekosystem.com/52-billion-forrussian-space-program/ [Accessed: 21 Oct 2013]. Glen Tickle, Senior Editor for GeekSystem, makes an online post focusing mainly on the differences of N.A.S.A. and the current Russian space program. The first 3 sentences in the post immediately dive into the style of argument that Tickle uses through the post. These 2 sentences are: the golden age of the American space program was all about beating Russia to important milestones. Theres no longer that sense of competition based around our efforts in space. Thats good, because were about to get crushed. (Tickle).

Eisner21

The way this is toned shows the severity that Tickle believes exists in the current situation. Tickle further builds on this topic by describing the space programs of the United States and Russian: Vladimir Putin announced that the Russian government is putting $52 billion dollars into its space program and giving the program its own ministry. If youre curious, NASAs proposed budget for 2014 is only $17.7 billion. (Tickle). He states this to show the change in goals between the 2 most prominent space programs over the past few decades, with N.A.S.A. and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) being highly competitive during the Cold War. Tickle directly and subtly inserts his opinion in the concluding section of the post by saying there are a few ways to look at this, but Im trying to be optimistic. History has shown that America is pretty reactionary when it comes to space. We didnt really concern ourselves with it until Sputnik was orbiting the Earth, so maybe this is the kick in the pants we need to get passionate about space again. (Tickle). This shows that he believes that the United States needs to start giving more attention and funding to N.A.S.A. This post was helpful because it focused on foreign affairs and another space program, rather than the specific benefits of N.A.S.A.