Montiel, Liam Ross A.

Adam Padgett
ENGL 102
22 November 2016
Since its creation, NASA has been the driving force of innovation in the United States of
America. It heralded a wave of scientific and technological advancement in the wake of the Cold
War and the Space Race. Ever since the last Apollo missions, NASA has had a lasting impact on
the things we take for granted. Our smart phones, computers, the Internet, sunglasses, etc. could
all be traced to the innovations created by the world-renowned space agency. However, despite
these contributions, recently NASA has been gradually overlooked and underfunded. Although
most people support the notion that technology will ultimately benefit our lives in the future, the
driving force of innovation is running out fuel. There is downward trend in NASAs funding by
the federal government throughout the years. This trend could be attributed to numerous things.
Among other things, public opinion proves to be the main culprit. Public opinion has a
significant and possibly adverse effect on the funding of the NASA space program due to
concerns about wastefully spending money on the space program without any immediate returns
to society.
In recent years, there has been growing criticism of the space agency for wasting tax
money. People have called for the redirecting of funds from the space agency to supplement
other domestic issues. According to DeGroot, the time has come to pull the plug on meaningless
gestures in space. DeGroot contends that the NASA space program is essentially a waste of
federal money. He also argues that the money being used on NASA could be better used on

domestic issues such as starvation and disease. In addition to the claims that NASA is wasteful
spending, Roff states that America must first get its financial house in order. Some people
agree with this contention that the money spent on NASA could be better used in other domestic
and down to earth issues. Although a valid contention, the annual budget of NASA consists of
roughly half of one-percent of the total federal budget (Carreau). The annual budget of NASA
consists of such a small percentage of the federal budget, that the money used on NASA could
not possibly be used for other domestic issues. Compared to the annual military spending by the
federal government, the money spent on NASA seems like pocket change. DeGroot also claims
that NASA endlessly spending money without ever producing anything. DeGroot essentially
states that NASA has provided nothing tangible to society. Although, DeGroot makes this claim,
it is totally unfounded. This criticism seems to be brought about by a lack of knowledge to the
contributions of NASA to society.
On numerous occasions and instances, NASA has made a multitude of contributions to
society. One such example of the contribution of NASA is advanced computer technology.
Seldom do people wonder the humble origins of the smart phone they use every day. Although
pitiful by todays standards for computers, the computers used on the Apollo missions formed
the basis for modern computing (Puiu). The development of advanced computer software that
controlled critical safety and propulsion mechanism in the Apollo missions paved the way for
more advanced computer software. This advancement in computer technology eventually lead to
the invention of the smart phone. These smart phones would then become a common device
throughout the world, whose computing power would make the computers on the Apollo
missions pale in comparison. New and advanced computer software are not the only
contributions NASA has provided to society. These contributions range from life-saving

medical devices to protective eyewear (Spector). The advancements in both technology and
science made by NASA has had lasting impacts to everyday society.
Although people generally support the NASA space program and believe that it should
continue to receive funding from the government there is a lack of knowledge regarding the
space program. Carreau states that on average, Americans believe NASAs annual budget is
about 2.4% of federal spending when NASAs annual budget consist of merely half of onepercent of the total government budget. This misconception between knowing how much is
exactly spent on the space program shows that there is a lack of education and knowledge about
NASA functions. This lack of knowledge also contributes to the relative lack of focus by the
space agency. NASA is essentially rudderless or without direction, despite the program
achieving numerous scientific wonders (Levinger). The lack of direction by NASA stems from
an inherent lack of education and interest in the space program. Although many support NASA,
the public needs to be aware of how the space program functions.
In addition to the lack of knowledge about the NASA space program by the public, there
is a seemingly lack of interest in space. In the article, Privatized Space Exploration Has
Disadvantages and Benefits, the author claims that if people understood the purpose of space
exploration, then there would be more public interest and the funding from the federal
government would more than likely increase. This claim is based upon the notion that funding
for the space agency drastically showed a downward trend since the Cold War ended. The article
also states that despite the achievements made by NASA in sending robots to the far reaches of
our solar system, the missions have failed to stoke the publics imagination the way Apollos
astronaut once did. Generally, public interest on the achievements of NASA have dwindled.
Despite promises of sending man back to the moon and possibly manned missions to Mars, the

space program could only achieve so much with the amount of funding they receive. Levinger
states that most projects end up behind schedule and lacked additional funding. The inability of
NASA to continue projects in a timely fashion stems from the lack of knowledge and education
of the public about American space policy. Should interest and the public be properly educated
about the numerous contributions made by NASA, there would be a tangible return to society.
Historically, NASAs total budget peaked at 4.41 percent of the total federal budget in the
year 1966, at the height of the Cold War. Three years later, Buzz Aldrin and Neil Armstrong
would land on the surface of the moon. They would return as national heroes in the eyes of the
American public. In his article, Space Policy Responsiveness: The Relationship Between Public
Opinion And NASA Funding, Alan Steinberg contends that there is a historical trend between
government responsiveness and public opinion. He also states that the massive for the space
program was a direct result of an international competition between the USA and Russia. There
is a direct correlation between the funding for NASA and public support. Simply put, the more
the public supports a certain aspect, such as space policy, the more the government will respond.
During the Cold War, the idea that the Russians would beat the America in the space race became
a national issue thus the public supported the massive funding for the space program and the
government responded. However, since the end of the of the Cold War, space exploration become
more of an after-thought. The moment the Americans realized that Russia could no longer
compete with the USA in a space race, a downward trend emerged in the funding of the space
program. However, this downward trend should not continue. The annual NASA budget should
increase. Erin Wallace claims that the NASA budget should increase citing scientific discovery,
economic benefit, and national security as some of the reasons for the necessity to reinvigorate
the space exploration program. She also claims that it is imperative that the annual budget of

NASA should increase from half of one-percent to a full one percent for the space program to
leave a legacy behind. To increase budget for NASA, there needs to be a bridge that closes the
gap between the lack of education and interest in the space program. A renewed spark of interest
and support will once again rekindle the driving force of innovation in America.
1) You seem to have a clear thesis and inquiry question. I would double check all your in-text
citations concerning direct quotes. Works cited look good but be sure to include a title to draw
in your readers!
2) Your stance seems clear. Good job keeping your voice present throughout the paper!
3) Youve seemed to do a good job regarding multiple opinions on the topic.
4) As I mentioned youve done a great job keeping your voice heard throughout the paper,
however in order to strengthen your argument you may want to create more dialogue between
your own voice and those voices of your researched articles.
5) You seem to have a great argument on your side and an interesting one at that! As I read the
article I grasped most of the information regarding the more detailed scientific portions
however depending on your targeted audience it may help to further explain information
those readers may not have prior knowledge about.
Works Cited
Carreau, Mark. "Public Display Of Affection." Aviation Week & Space Technology 175.8 (2013):
19. Academic Search Complete. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.

DeGroot, Jerry. "The US Government Should Cut NASA Funding." Space Exploration, edited by
David Haugen and Zack Lewis, Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Opposing Viewpoints
in Context. 16 Nov. 2016.
Levinger, Josh. "The US Government Should Not Cut NASA Funding." Space Exploration. Ed.
David Haugen and Zack Lewis. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2012. At Issue. Rpt. from
"Opinion: Should We Cut NASA Funding?: Counterpoint: Funding a New Mission for
NASA Is Funding Our Future." The Tech. Vol. 130. 2010. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
"Privatized Space Exploration Has Disadvantages and Benefits." Space Exploration. Ed. Michael
Ruth. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from
"Neil Armstrong Had Little Confidence in Privatized Space Travel." 2012. Opposing
Viewpoints in Context. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Puiu, Tibi. "Your Smartphone Is Millions of times More Powerful That All of NASA's Combined
Computing in 1969." ZME Science. N.p., 01 Sept. 2016. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.
Roff, Peter. "To Infinity and Beyond?: More Wasteful Spending at NASA." US News. U.S.News
& World Report, 10 Apr. 2013. Web. 16 Nov. 2016.
Spector, Dina. "20 Everyday Things We Have Because Of NASA." Business Insider. Business
Insider, Inc, 07 Aug. 2012. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.
Steinberg, Alan. "Space Policy Responsiveness: The Relationship Between Public Opinion And
NASA Funding." Space Policy 27.4 (2011): 240-246. Academic Search Complete. Web.
29 Sept. 2016.

Wallace, Erin. "The United States Should Reignite the Space Race." Space Exploration. Ed.
Michael Ruth. Farmington Hills, MI: Greenhaven Press, 2016. Opposing Viewpoints.
Rpt. from "OpinionWallace: US Must Reinvigorate Space Exploration."
Dailytoreador.com (11 Nov. 2014). Opposing Viewpoints in Context. Web. 26 Oct. 2016.