Arguments Against Funding NASA

Neil Armstrong once said "The important achievement of Apollo was demonstrating that humanity is not forever chained to this planet and our visions go rather further than that and our opportunities are unlimited.". This quote shows how much humanity values space exploration for its symbolic and real value. But since Neil Armstrong said this there has been a change in the way people view space exploration. For example, during the height of the space race NASA's budget was 4.4% of U.S. GDP but today its only 0.5%. Jerry DeGroot, History professor at the University of St. Andrews, said "Funding NASA siphons money from other worthwhile, terrestrial programs such as helping the nation's poor." and that "The time has come to pull the plug on meaningless gestures in space.". So in this paper, I will see if space exploration, NASA in particular, should be publicly funded.
This isn't true, mainly because funding NASA gives our nations brightest challenging and unique problems that need unique and brilliant solutions, and that is how an breakthrough occurs. Acclaimed Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson said “Water filters. A NASA invention. You can say, “I need a way to filter water for my refrigerator.” I don’t know what a person would come up with, but nobody did. If you say instead, “There is a supply of water on a space station and it is the only supply of water we will ever have. I need a way to filter it.” That’s a cool problem to solve.” And “We’re talking about how grand the problem is that is presented in front of smart and motivated people, people who want to make a difference in the world. Now we all have filtered water in our refrigerator. That’s all NASA.” . But funding NASA has other important real world benefits, namely the effect on our