Should the government be funding space exploration? What has come out of the United States space program and is it worth the investment? Does space exploration have to be government run, or are there alternative ways to explore the universe? It is questions like these that must be answered when determining the future of space exploration. Despite the dream of space exploration being a peaceful one, the space program only came about as the result of the cold war. The program improved the military capabilities of the nation, and also demonstrated its power. After the space race ended, the US space program started to lose its funding. Space exploration can be very expensive, and with the arms race over, some people do not believe that space
…show more content…
Despite the benefits of the space program, it still receives opposition in the government. It may be easier to have privately run space programs and it’s possible that they could be even more effective. NASA has a history of working with aerospace companies. Private companies, such as Lockheed Martin, already build NASA’s space vehicles (“Human Space Flight”). It would make sense to remove the government from the process and to allow these companies to launch the vehicles themselves and manage their own space program. Several private companies have already started working on their own space programs, and NASA offered a contract for a private company to supply the International Space Station, ISS. The companies who were competing included the Orbital Sciences Corporation, Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX (Urry). It was SpaceX that received the contract and became the first private company to return from orbit and to supply the ISS. The company is also planning to begin carrying crew to the space station, and is working to significantly lower the cost of space travel, all while making a profit (“About SpaceX: Company”). SpaceX has already proved that a private space program is possible, and that it can be …show more content…
My position in this debate draws from all sides. NASA has achieved many great things, proving that space can be explored, and that it holds benefits for humanity. However, the truth is that the space program was born out of the Cold War, and the most substantial space exploration occurred during that period. Early space exploration was heavily driven by military goals. Now that space exploration is not a military objective, the government does not prioritize its funding as much. Science based programs, including NASA, only account for 1.13% of the government’s budget. National defense on the other hand, receives 23.91% of the taxes collected by the government (“Your 2014 Taxpayer Receipt”). This clearly shows that defense is the government's main priority, and that is understandable. Instead of forcing the government to pay more for space exploration, the main objectives of NASA could be changed to focus on defense from extraterrestrial threats, such as asteroids. With its current funding, NASA is struggling to locate large asteroids that could kill billions if they were to land in a populated area (McBrien). If NASA focused its efforts on locating asteroids and finding ways to redirect them, it would not only be a more effective use of their current funding, it may make it easier to request more funding in the
Despite the benefits of the space program, it still receives opposition in the government. It may be easier to have privately run space programs and it’s possible that they could be even more effective. NASA has a history of working with aerospace companies. Private companies, such as Lockheed Martin, already build NASA’s space vehicles (“Human Space Flight”). It would make sense to remove the government from the process and to allow these companies to launch the vehicles themselves and manage their own space program. Several private companies have already started working on their own space programs, and NASA offered a contract for a private company to supply the International Space Station, ISS. The companies who were competing included the Orbital Sciences Corporation, Blue Origin, Boeing, Sierra Nevada, and SpaceX (Urry). It was SpaceX that received the contract and became the first private company to return from orbit and to supply the ISS. The company is also planning to begin carrying crew to the space station, and is working to significantly lower the cost of space travel, all while making a profit (“About SpaceX: Company”). SpaceX has already proved that a private space program is possible, and that it can be …show more content…
My position in this debate draws from all sides. NASA has achieved many great things, proving that space can be explored, and that it holds benefits for humanity. However, the truth is that the space program was born out of the Cold War, and the most substantial space exploration occurred during that period. Early space exploration was heavily driven by military goals. Now that space exploration is not a military objective, the government does not prioritize its funding as much. Science based programs, including NASA, only account for 1.13% of the government’s budget. National defense on the other hand, receives 23.91% of the taxes collected by the government (“Your 2014 Taxpayer Receipt”). This clearly shows that defense is the government's main priority, and that is understandable. Instead of forcing the government to pay more for space exploration, the main objectives of NASA could be changed to focus on defense from extraterrestrial threats, such as asteroids. With its current funding, NASA is struggling to locate large asteroids that could kill billions if they were to land in a populated area (McBrien). If NASA focused its efforts on locating asteroids and finding ways to redirect them, it would not only be a more effective use of their current funding, it may make it easier to request more funding in the