The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, remains one of the most famous government funded programs in the world. This same agency put the first dozen people on the moon, brought the world together to build the International Space Station, and explored the outer reaches of the solar system. Today, the program does not hold the same respect as previous years. Combative politics plague NASA. It needs a new budget plan to end its uneconomical rocket program: the Space Launch System. NASA has the capability to return to its former stature and recapture the public’s attention. However, significant changes are necessary to achieve this goal. Recognize the steps in history that have led NASA to this unfortunate situation.
…show more content…
The reason stems from suboptimal budget allocation to right programs. Unsurprisingly, the Space launch System stands as the main culprit to this budget problem. Currently NASA feeds this program insufficiently, causing inefficient and slow development. Furthermore, there are very few launches planned in the coming decade, partially due to the lack of funding. If the SLS gets more funding, perhaps NASA would actually start developing some parts for rocket, and more importantly: payloads for the rocket to launch. This would eventually lead to the future goal of humans on mars, but that would still not happen for a long time. The other option scraps SLS entirely and puts the responsibility in the hands of private space companies. These companies have already proved to be more efficient in terms of development time and cost. Private companies can raise funds from investors, source supplies from anywhere, and avoid government inefficiencies. For example: the company SpaceX has proposed a rocket that will send humans to mars in just 1 launch, whereas the SLS would require multiple launches to send people to mars. Not only will it achieve the goal with less launches, the rocket will have a reusable design, further saving costs. This would be the most successful approach, but the least likely in the political battleground called …show more content…
They focus not on SLS itself, but its potential and the principle of funding (Foust). Ted Cruz, the chair of the Senate subcommittee on Space, suggests, “Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space”. However, he says this in the context of reducing the funding of climate science. The Senator has made it clear that he does not accept human induced climate change. However, the money given to NASA to study earth’s climate intends not to ruin Cruz’s day, but helps scientists understand the planet and prepare areas of changing climate accordingly. While he may have a valid argument that this isn’t NASA’s territory, he does not ever propose that the NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, take this responsibility instead. This makes his vested interest very apparent and his reason for the SLS
The reason stems from suboptimal budget allocation to right programs. Unsurprisingly, the Space launch System stands as the main culprit to this budget problem. Currently NASA feeds this program insufficiently, causing inefficient and slow development. Furthermore, there are very few launches planned in the coming decade, partially due to the lack of funding. If the SLS gets more funding, perhaps NASA would actually start developing some parts for rocket, and more importantly: payloads for the rocket to launch. This would eventually lead to the future goal of humans on mars, but that would still not happen for a long time. The other option scraps SLS entirely and puts the responsibility in the hands of private space companies. These companies have already proved to be more efficient in terms of development time and cost. Private companies can raise funds from investors, source supplies from anywhere, and avoid government inefficiencies. For example: the company SpaceX has proposed a rocket that will send humans to mars in just 1 launch, whereas the SLS would require multiple launches to send people to mars. Not only will it achieve the goal with less launches, the rocket will have a reusable design, further saving costs. This would be the most successful approach, but the least likely in the political battleground called …show more content…
They focus not on SLS itself, but its potential and the principle of funding (Foust). Ted Cruz, the chair of the Senate subcommittee on Space, suggests, “Almost any American would agree that the core function of NASA is to explore space”. However, he says this in the context of reducing the funding of climate science. The Senator has made it clear that he does not accept human induced climate change. However, the money given to NASA to study earth’s climate intends not to ruin Cruz’s day, but helps scientists understand the planet and prepare areas of changing climate accordingly. While he may have a valid argument that this isn’t NASA’s territory, he does not ever propose that the NOAA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, take this responsibility instead. This makes his vested interest very apparent and his reason for the SLS