A Rhetorical Analysis

According to a pie chart called, “Federal Spending for United States - FY 2015” from the NASA Data Charts, the budget for space in 2015 is not a percentage significant enough to have its own section. Instead, it is a subsection of the heading Other Spendings, which is given 2% of the federal budget. Also, in the Neil deGrasse Tyson article, it is said that the American government only gives a 7/10 cent of a tax dollar to space exploration (Tyson 2). He gives a brilliant resolution by saying, “ I’d prefer that it were more, perhaps 2 cents on the dollar.” even though we used to “. . . peak NASA spending amounted to no more than 4 cents on the tax dollar”. One of the most important technological advance was the invention of the Hubble Space

Do you ever wonder how journalists get away with presenting overly biased information through blog sites and news articles? Reporters have been doing this for years, and because of the law enforcement's inability to regulate what gets broadcasted through the media, these articles remain the leading culprits for false interpretation by the audience. A Modest Proposal is a prime example of how easy it is to manipulate the media by the way Swift conjures up what seems to be the “only solution” for the poverty issues in Ireland. Although the idea of “eating children to save money” seems absurd today, the citizens actually believed it to be a probable solution at the time. Swift influenced the viewpoints of his readers by the way he presented logical statistics in his work, making him seem as a credible source to onlookers who had no prior knowledge on the topic.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is perhaps the most well known space agency in the world. Since its formation in 19581, it has pioneered in space science, yet is also renowned for its large budget. NASA has the highest budget of any space agency, $18.6 billion2 in 2015, the equivalent of every American paying $54 towards the agency3, meaning 0.14% of total GDP is spent on NASA3 . This money is spent on the ISS, sending astronauts, probes and satellites into space, astrophysics and planetary science research, maintaining and developing NASA’s space telescopes (the Wide Field Infrared Survey telescope searching for dark energy and exoplanets, the James Webb Space Telescope and the Hubble Space Telescope) and developing spacecraft2. Space exploration is an incredibly expensive process with one shuttle launch costing $450 million4 however NASA’s colossal budget benefits the USA greatly; the agency employs 18,000 people5 as astronauts, engineers, scientists and teachers and G. Scott Hubbard, former director of the NASA Ames Research Center estimates that every dollar spent on NASA returns $8 to the economy6.While this figure is an estimate, it demonstrates NASA’s worth and capacity for money making. NASA works on pioneering research and as its patents and licenses return to the US treasury, it

Citing cases such as SpaceX, which built a rocket named the dragon 320x cheaper than NASA’s spaceship the Orion, many opponents to governmental space exploration heavily recommend NASA to privatize many of its sectors. However, contrary to popular belief, NASA is not an entirely government run corporation and in essence has already inherently privatized almost all of its sectors which should be privatized to cut down costs. For instance, NASA Administrator Chris Scolese told a congressional subcommittee back in 2009 that the agency will give $150 million in stimulus-package money to private companies that design, build and service their own rockets. Furthermore, NASA has picked three private companies to act as its International Space Station “delivery service” through the next eight years. The contractors of SpaceX, Orbital ATK, and Sierra Nevada Corporation will transport supplies up to the International Space Station and back to NASA starting in late 2019. Most importantly, President Obama announced in his Space Plan that his goal was to restructure NASA to focus on space research and development while reassigning the other tasks of NASA to private corporations. Thus, the claim that NASA needs to privatize falls hollow because NASA is already privatizing the sectors which should be privatized. The majority of sectors that NASA funds in the status quo lies in

Similar to the first source from NASA, Ernst Stuhlinger, then the Associate Director of Science at NASA, responded to this question personally by writing a long detailed letter in 1970. In his letter, Stuhlinger speaks of how he believes that space exploration “in the long run, will contribute more to the solution of these grave problems we are facing here on earth” today. In addition, Stuhlinger uses logistical data by explaining how the United States use around “200 billion dollars a year” and how only “1.6% of this national budget was allocated to space exploration this year.” If this was to be put in the current time period, then space exploration would only be using “0.52 % of the national budget”3. Overall, Stuhlinger focuses on answering

Some citizens believe that NASA is a waste of time. Some would venture to say the program has “no practical use to mankind” and the $17 billion of taxpayers money is put towards failed projects and a hope to get to another planet (Government funding). Every time the program goes into space there is no guarantee they will find something new. Spending money on ineffective trips is pointless for the taxpayers; every time the astronauts go into space they go to the same places making no progress. Since the United States is tied with NASA, the program prevents branches of the government placing space work with another agency, which prevents progress with other space agencies (Government funding). Before going into space, NASA should try to solve problems on Earth first. Such as making a car that doesn’t use gas or pollute the air, finding ways to fix the ozone layer, making less pollution by using renewable resources. Instead of going to Mars, solving issues such as global warming is very important to the Earth. Global warming and climate changes are very important to keeping the Earth a safe, healthy place to live. With the debt America is already in, spending more money to send people on the same missions into space over and over again is just spending more money than the States cannot

They claim they need every penny they can get in these rough times. The economy is doing poorly, and government money is better spent elsewhere, and apparently they feel that government money would be better spent outside of programs like NASA. However, there are many sources that directly counter this opinion, claiming that NASA is an investment to stimulate the economy, and not just money being “shot into space”. The cost of NASA, as is true of almost any government agency, is worth it, because it can benefit the economy directly through the purchase of goods and creation of jobs, and indirectly by inspiring people in industries that spawn from invented technologies or materials. Many companies have gone on to be very successful private businesses after working with materials invented by NASA. The Tempur-Pedic mattress company got its start when NASA scientists wanted to provide comfortable seating for pilots that needed to remain in one position for a long time. There are many cases like these in which niches have been created for companies due to progress made at

Living in a country that provides access to great health care, one would expect the United States to have a sufficient supply of medical professionals such as doctors. After all, the country has a booming population and is home to many respected institutions with driven and compassionate medical students. However, in the March 3, 2015 edition of The Washington Post, Lenny Bernstein addresses a relatively new problem in healthcare. In the article, “U.S. Faces 90,000 Doctor Shortage by 2025, Medical School Association Warns”, Bernstein successfully creates a real sense of this crisis through his use of logos and diction to address the expected shortage of medical doctors.

In "Space technology: A critical investment for our nation's future" by Bobby Braun, Braun speaks out about the influential aspects of investing in updating our space technology. Our modern world today derives from technology that NASA scientists create, to better our future nation. Through the pursuit of being a leading nation in technological advancement, the United States economy has accelerated because of it. It has yielded new industries, products, and services for the United States citizens and allies. Bobby Braun retired from NASA as the NASA chief technologist. Mr. Braun has nearly 30 years of experience as a space system engineer, technologist, and organizational leader. This shows why he stands so eager to help NASA receive more funding. He is also a recognized authority in the development of planetary exploration systems and the advancement of space technology, because of this relation to the program this motivated him to write this adressment. Braun could have introduced some statistics and averages to help support his claims, this would have grabbed more people interested in

While NASA may have once been the leading space organization in the world, the cuts and budget changes are not giving NASA what it needs to succeed. Today, NASA makes up around .5%, or $17 billion, of the national budget. This number is much smaller than the 4.5% in 1966. The United States government is cutting many different organizations and administrations in an attempt to balance the budget. The launching of a NASA space shuttle alone costs around half a billions dollars. Along with research and other things being made by NASA, it is extremely hard for the administration to launch shuttles. The government is being forced to turn its money from NASA, due to the high cost of building and launching rockets, and pay the private companies to take materials and government equipment to the International Space Station. Because of the cuts, various NASA projects are being shut down and abandoned. In 2005, the funding cuts threatened the longest running mission that NASA was running at the time; the Voyager probes. The Voyager probes are two probes that are headed into

Imagine you are a father of four children. Your wife passes away from cancer and your family is in desperate need for food. Your family lives in a dilapidated apartment and you work your fingers to the bone to pay the taxes. You want the money that you paid the government to be used efficiently in a way that will affect you directly, such as healthcare, food, or education, not to reach the moon. Yet the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) used about $18 billion in 2014 for their budget. NASA was created by the United States for the research and development of spacecrafts. The United States and the Soviet Union engaged in the Space Race during the Cold War with the development of technology. Achieving human spaceflight enabled them to discover and explore outer space and the rest of the universe. NASA, however, has outlived its original purpose and has cost more than its worth by misusing its time and resources.

NASA themselves have not only contributed to exploring the vast, empty, yet strangely amazing area we call space, but they have also created products that we use in everyday life. The unfortunate thing is that NASA is receiving less and less of the funding that it needs in order to continue to operate at its top level. What's worse is that more and more people feel that NASA shouldn't be getting what it is now either, that they could go on with less. So then the question that needs to be answered is “Why should we keep funding NASA?”

The other side of the debate is that the costs of pushing the boundaries in space are too high. The significant private capital can be raised for space exploration because even if NASA is unwilling to fund a particular project, does not mean it cannot take place. The Mars mission is not first in the list of priorities when there are enough problems on earth where money could invest. Overall, these questions and debates go back to the main question that is if the government should continue to fund for NASA 's exploration into space?

“The emergence of a commercial capability such as Red Dragon, is the type of development that can allow movement out of the constraining box of legacy approaches to Mars Sample Return.” -Andrew. Using the reusable rocket technology developed by SpaceX, NASA is able to improve their mission and widen their scope such as bringing back samples from Mars. Making spaceflight cheaper also means NASA can engage in more manned mission within its relatively small budget. Cheaper and more efficient rockets opens up additional opportunities for missions, since currently it is extremely expensive to send an individual into space.“NASA's most recent contract with Russia priced a ride on the Soyuz at $70.7 million per astronaut,13 whereas one commercial provider pledged to provide the equivalent for no more than $20 million per astronaut at the first launch.”-Bell. This would allow NASA to save nearly $51 million per astronaut, resulting in a 70% reduction

The U.S government is to consider reducing NASA funds to spare money to pay of the countries’ debt, give way to private companies, and help reduce poverty in the United States. It is true that NASA contributes to some extent on how far technology has gone. Contributions being the signal smartphones receive from space satellites. However, the economy is not totally healthy unless "the economy were growing at a healthy rate, say 4 percent per year" (Roff 4). This percentage is near far what the U.S. economy is increasing yearly. Therefore, the government should reduce funds for NASA for the better of our country.