Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars
Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars There has been so much talk on the funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and if we should keep our interest in outer space or if we should use the funding elsewhere. This is an issue that we are facing today. Current federal expenditures for research and development are $15. 7 billion. Will the government decide to stop funding the project? Or will we keep reaching for the stars? Dr.
Neil deGrasse Tyson has wrote a book called “Space Chronicles: Facing The Ultimate Frontier” and has an article in the current edition of Foreign Affairs, “The Case For Space: Why We Should Keep Reaching for the Stars. ” Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson discussion on space policy involved, the NASA budget, investment in our future, the space race, and many more issues. He continued on about how the budget should be increased and how the economic growth that comes with innovation and inspiration, and unplanned and fortunate discoveries.
U. S. President Barack Obama had his vision for the future of American space exploration, which included a mission to Mars. Of course now the United States commits to the goal of reaching Mars. Even though the mission to Mars will be beyond President Obamas term in office the promise is inherited by another president. This would not happen till 2030s since we have advance launch vehicles that can bypass the moon. How much would it cost to travel to Mars? Dr.
Neil deGrasse Tyson states, “surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars — maybe even $ 1 trillion. ” To approach $ 1 trillion we would have to look at a multi-decade program of manned Mars missions. There is nothing in the U. S. Constitution that authorizes the federal government to run a space program. Except to the extent that it directly relates to national security, the federal government should not be involved in space exploration, travel or R&D. Between rounds of NASA’s latest free game downloaded from the iTunes Store.
Therefore this topic has nothing to do with what “fraction of one of my tax dollars … is the total cost of all U. S. space borne telescopes and planetary probes, the rovers on Mars, the International Space Station, the recently terminated space shuttle, telescopes yet to orbit, and missions yet to fly. ” If these unconstitutional government programs cost such a tiny percentage of our total taxes, then they cost an even tinier percentage of our total income, and an even tinier percentage of our total wealth.
If they are so relatively inexpensive, then clearly, this is an argument to let the people who are most interested in such programs and who will benefit most from them pay for them from their own pockets. Are there greater issues that we contribute to instead of funding the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the other programs that help all of this work together? Or will we continue to increase and decrease the unemployment rate but opening and closing research areas that create job?