Limiting the Funding of U.S Space Program
Animesh Karki
Limiting the Funding of U.S Space Program The spirit and sense of adventure of exploring the ‘heavens’ captivates the general public very easily. Ever since the competition between the Soviet Union and U.S to occupy space, the United States has been on a consistent drive to discover more and more of outer space. Although there are minor independent companies that contribute to space exploration, the U.S government directly funds one main program, which it has established to perform space-related tasks, the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA). As innovative ideas arise, the potentials of technology augment resulting in an increased need of funding. The spirit for adventure of the general public greatly aids the influence on the increase of the funding because of widespread assent which in result overshadows other problems brought concerning Earth and people. The funding for the U.S. Space Program should not increase because of a large amount of overlooked consequences, many fallacious reasoning and lack of productivity. The aspirations of space exploration goals for humanity clearly overshadow the consequences which deserve greater concern. Numerous effects to space exploration only come to realization after the damage has already been done. One of the most significant displays of carelessness by NASA was the 2003 shuttle Columbia accident where investigators following the accident, which killed seven astronauts, did not force NASA to confront the ‘foam debris’ problem head-on (“Did NASA Fail”). Due to overlooked precautions, the deaths occurred. However, the deaths were insufficient in provoking forewarnings because problems still are not being solved and NASA officials were still unsure of the fix or its effects on the space program many months after the major incident. Another significant risk of space exploration is the effect of microgravity. Microgravity, a
Limiting the Funding of U.S Space Program The spirit and sense of adventure of exploring the ‘heavens’ captivates the general public very easily. Ever since the competition between the Soviet Union and U.S to occupy space, the United States has been on a consistent drive to discover more and more of outer space. Although there are minor independent companies that contribute to space exploration, the U.S government directly funds one main program, which it has established to perform space-related tasks, the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA). As innovative ideas arise, the potentials of technology augment resulting in an increased need of funding. The spirit for adventure of the general public greatly aids the influence on the increase of the funding because of widespread assent which in result overshadows other problems brought concerning Earth and people. The funding for the U.S. Space Program should not increase because of a large amount of overlooked consequences, many fallacious reasoning and lack of productivity. The aspirations of space exploration goals for humanity clearly overshadow the consequences which deserve greater concern. Numerous effects to space exploration only come to realization after the damage has already been done. One of the most significant displays of carelessness by NASA was the 2003 shuttle Columbia accident where investigators following the accident, which killed seven astronauts, did not force NASA to confront the ‘foam debris’ problem head-on (“Did NASA Fail”). Due to overlooked precautions, the deaths occurred. However, the deaths were insufficient in provoking forewarnings because problems still are not being solved and NASA officials were still unsure of the fix or its effects on the space program many months after the major incident. Another significant risk of space exploration is the effect of microgravity. Microgravity, a
Cited: Bailey, Ronald. “Does Mars have rights? An ethical case for terraforming the Red Planet.” Reason Feb. 2012: 42+ General OneFile. Web. 20 Apr. 2012. Bloomfield, Ellie, et al. “Space Debate.” Popular Science May 2011: 10. General OneFile. Web. 1 May. 2012. “Did NASA fail to confront hazard?” Industrial Safety & Hygiene News Sept. 2005: 14+. General OneFile. Web. 2 May. 2012. “No future for Mars?” Space Daily 28 Feb. 2012. General OneFile. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. “Prolonged Space Travel Causes Brain and Eye Abnormalities in Astronauts.” Space Daily 29 March. 2012. General OneFile. Web. 16 Apr. 2012. “Psychological Effects of Space Exploration.” ThinkQuest. Oracle Foundation, 2000. Web. 2 May. 2012. Vergano, Dan. “Has USA Hit Its Final Frontier In Human Space Exploration?” Ashbury Park Press (Ashbury Park, NJ). 19 Jan. 2010: n.p. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 2 May. 2012. Zubrin, Robert. “Wrecking NASA: America’s Most Wonderous and Daring Enterprise Now Points in a New Direction—Inward.” Commentary 129.6 (2010): 37+. General OneFile. Web. 12 Apr. 2012.