Running head: NASA FUNDING1 NASA FUNDING13 NASA Funding Persuasive Paper Part 2: Solution and Advantages Assignment 4 Student Name Dr. Mary Rose Kasraie Research and Writing: ENG215 Date NASA Funding: Setbacks and Politics The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is an often overlooked, yet vitally important organization, not just for the American people, but for all of mankind. While there are many issues yet to be resolved on this planet, space exploration is an important step for this species, and is something that could potentially unlock answers to questions here at home. The roadblock that comes into play with exploring space, however, is that it costs quite a bit of money to do so. While NASA receives a substantial amount of funding, the amount that is typically requested is not necessarily the amount that is received. Nevertheless, space exploration is extremely important, because, among other reasons, the planet’s resources are constantly needing to be replenished, which other planets might be able to provide. Bhandari (2008) maintains that “justification for planetary missions on economic criteria is occasionally made in view of the resources that exist on planets and possibility of their utilization.” While social, economic, and political challenges can prevent NASA from getting the appropriate funding, NASA should be provided with the funds necessary to explore to the extent that could potentially be beneficial for humans going into the future.Comment by Windows User: Note that no page number or paragraph number is given for this quote because the source has only one page.Comment by Windows User: Original thesis statement History of NASA and Budgeting NASA was created in 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower and Congress as “[a]n Act to provide for research into the problems of flight within and outside the Earth’s atmosphere, and for other purposes” (NASA history, 2011). After World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States were locked into what was known as the Cold War, and an area of contest arose in regards to space exploration, “the Space Race.” From here came the Sputnik crisis in which the Soviet Union launched the Sputnik 1 satellite after two failed U.S. launch attempts, making Sputnik 1 the first artificial satellite. This became known as the “Sputnik Crisis,” as this was perceived as indicating the existence of a technological gap between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The United States launched its first satellite, Explorer I, on January 31, 1958. Explorer I was able to detect and document the existence of radiation zones encircling the Earth, which came to be called the Van Allen Radiation Belt. However, in direct response to the Soviet Union’s increasing presence in the space exploration frontier, NASA began operations on October 1, 1958. NASA started with 8,000 employees, an annual budget of $100 million, and three major research laboratories (NASA history, 2011). As wil.

1. Running head: NASA FUNDING1
NASA FUNDING13
NASA Funding
Persuasive Paper Part 2:
Solution
and Advantages
Assignment 4
Student Name
Dr. Mary Rose Kasraie
Research and Writing: ENG215
Date
NASA Funding: Setbacks and Politics
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is
an often overlooked, yet vitally important organization, not just
for the American people, but for all of mankind. While there
are many issues yet to be resolved on this planet, space

2. exploration is an important step for this species, and is
something that could potentially unlock answers to questions
here at home. The roadblock that comes into play with
exploring space, however, is that it costs quite a bit of money to
do so. While NASA receives a substantial amount of funding,
the amount that is typically requested is not necessarily the
amount that is received. Nevertheless, space exploration is
extremely important, because, among other reasons, the planet’s
resources are constantly needing to be replenished, which other
planets might be able to provide. Bhandari (2008) maintains
that “justification for planetary missions on economic criteria is
occasionally made in view of the resources that exist on planets
and possibility of their utilization.” While social, economic,
and political challenges can prevent NASA from getting the
appropriate funding, NASA should be provided with the funds
necessary to explore to the extent that could potentially be
beneficial for humans going into the future.Comment by
Windows User: Note that no page number or paragraph number
is given for this quote because the source has only one
page.Comment by Windows User: Original thesis statement
History of NASA and Budgeting
NASA was created in 1958 by President Dwight D. Eisenhower
and Congress as “[a]n Act to provide for research into the
problems of flight within and outside the Earth’s atmosphere,
and for other purposes” (NASA history, 2011). After World

3. War II, the Soviet Union and the United States were locked into
what was known as the Cold War, and an area of contest arose
in regards to space exploration, “the Space Race.” From here
came the Sputnik crisis in which the Soviet Union launched the
Sputnik 1 satellite after two failed U.S. launch attempts, making
Sputnik 1 the first artificial satellite. This became known as the
“Sputnik Crisis,” as this was perceived as indicating the
existence of a technological gap between the U.S. and the
Soviet Union. The United States launched its first satellite,
Explorer I, on January 31, 1958. Explorer I was able to detect
and document the existence of radiation zones encircling the
Earth, which came to be called the Van Allen Radiation Belt.
However, in direct response to the Soviet Union’s increasing
presence in the space exploration frontier, NASA began
operations on October 1, 1958. NASA started with 8,000
employees, an annual budget of $100 million, and three major
research laboratories (NASA history, 2011). As will be seen,
however, the NASA of 2015 is vastly different from the NASA
of the 1950’s.Comment by Windows User: Note that [a]: an
uppercase A has been changed to lowercase in order to integrate
the quotation into the sentence.
According to NASA’s official website, its mission statement is
fairly similar to the original preamble: “NASA’s Vision: To
reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we
do and learn will benefit all humankind” (NASA history, 2011).

4. While this statement is semantically similar, the level of
exploration and different facets that now comprise NASA far
exceed what could have been imagined in the past. Whereas
launching a satellite was quite the accomplishment in the ’50s,
NASA now has other projects on the horizon, such as manned
missions to Mars and even missions to secure asteroids for
study by astronauts. The problem inherent in this leap forward
is that the price tag has also taken the evolutionary process,
with the success of these missions primarily depending on the
amount of funding available for them. This brings up the
problems NASA seems to face on a yearly basis. For starters,
NASA is typically not provided with the amount of money it
requests, requiring it to reallocate funds based on priority,
and/or cut jobs in order to make the money available. Secondly,
something that needs to be addressed is the way NASA’s budget
is broken down in regards to money allocated to specific
departments. A prime example of the problem is that NASA’s
education department only received $89 million dollars in 2015,
down 24% from the previous year (Plait, 2014). Lastly, the
view of NASA does not seem to represent its proper level of
importance as it should to those in power. President Obama’s
proposed national budget for 2015 was $3.9 trillion, which
would make NASA’s 2015 budget in comparison 0.45% of that
(Plait, 2014). Thus, these problems have to be addressed so that
NASA can truly show what it is capable of and succeed in its

5. proposed missions.
Budget Requests vs. Budget Provided
The first issue to address is the budget requests versus funds
provided. For the fiscal year (FY) of 2015, NASA requested
$17,460 billion dollars, which was actually $186 million less
than the previous year at $17,646 billion (Fiscal Year 2015,
2015, p. 10). In June of 2015, NASA was granted a $519
million budget increase for the FY of 2016, when NASA will
receive $18.5 billion (King, 2015). While at first glance this
might seem like a victory for NASA, where this money comes
from and the expectations surrounding the increase actually
seem to be more of a curse than a blessing. NASA Budget
Sticks to the Plan (2015) states the increased budget reflects
new contracts with Boeing and SpaceX to finish developing and
flight-testing vehicles for transporting crews to the
International Space Station so as to focus on human exploration
at the Moon and beyond. In the same article, Rep. Lamar
Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology
Committee states:
I am disappointed that the budget request does not adequately
support the programs that will take us farther into space to
destinations like Mars. In fact, this budget cuts human space
exploration and planetary science. The Obama administration
continues to include costly distractions—such as climate
funding—better suited for other agencies, and an asteroid

6. retrieval mission that the space community does not support.
(Morring Jr., 2015, p. 7)
NASA seems to always be in a conundrum, in which they either
request funding that they do not receive in full, or receive more
than necessary, only for it to be expected to go towards
programs that are not supported, while ones that are, face a
variety of cuts.
Allocation of Funding
While receiving the funding necessary is the primary issue,
allocation of said funding becomes an equally important, and
yet stressful, secondary problem. Issues in Science and
Technology (2015) states that while the committee granted
NASA the $519 million dollar increase in order to keep pace
with inflation, the spending would have to be reallocated among
various agency programs to achieve the “balanced portfolio”
sought by Republicans (p. 19). Part of this reallocation of
funding is going towards climate science programs now being
taken on by NASA that agencies such as the Science Mission
Directorate argue would be better left to the U.S. Geological
Survey and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(p. 20). The Earth Sciences program will be cut by $56 million,
with funding shifted instead to Planetary Science, as Republican
efforts have been to increase funding for a robotic mission to
Jupiter’s moon, Europa (p. 20). Space Technology received
more money as this is the program that will be utilized for the

7. asteroid retrieval mission, however, Astrophysics took a $61
million hit, along with the aforementioned cut being
administered to Education, taking it down to $89 million dollars
(Plait, 2014). With less funding available for education, the
work that has been done through NASA in regard to public
advocacy and garnering public interest in beyond Earth
exploration will not be continued at the previous level. A big
part of what NASA will need to do is to take the money as is,
and utilize it as best can be done, not only figure out ways to
accomplish what they have initially intended, but also to meet
the demands from the investing parties.
Perception of NASA
It would seem that the perception of NASA is another problem
in that it is only important when necessary to meet the demands
of outside parties. The idea of space exploration does not seem
as important to those in power as it should, and it would seem
the only time budget requests are met or exceeded is when
ulterior motives are at hand. Ledyard King (2015) notes that,
although $18.5 billion is more than the program has ever
received, it is still $250 million less than the administration
requested. When taken into account that the space community
was not even supportive of the programs that the funding was
given for in the first place, coupled with the fact that the
funding provided is still short of what was necessary to
accomplish the already pre-determined goals by NASA, it is

8. easy to get the impression that NASA is not viewed in a light of
importance, but instead convenience. Another example of this
is mentioned within the article in “Don’t Blind NASA to Earth’s
Climate: (2015) in which it states that Senator Ted Cruz, chair
of the Senate Subcommittee on Space, Science, and
Competitiveness, pushed for NASA’s Earth Science budget to
be cut in order to focus on off-earth projects, which NASA
itself protested. If the respect will not be given to NASA in
regards to the funding provided to the agency and where it
needs to be allocated, then no matter what amount is provided,
it will essentially be inconsequential.
Conclusion
In conclusion, NASA has three primary problems to address.
First and foremost is the constant struggle of putting forth
justified budgetary requests, only to be either denied, or worse,
given more than requested with outside interests tacked on.
Coupled with this is the issue of the funds, and how funding is
provided for programs not supported by the space community,
while programs that are, become the ones that receive cuts.
NASA does not appear to be in complete control of how to
allocate its assets towards reaching the goals it sets forth in its
budget requests. Finally, the perception of NASA does not
appear to be one of importance, because if it were, money
would be granted without side missions attached, which would
allow NASA to focus on the tasks at hand. Although the

9. amount of money involved is staggering, and there are a lot of
cooks in the kitchen so to speak, solutions can be found to
resolve these problems in order to meet the needs of those
investing, while accomplishing the needs of NASA itself.
While resolving these problems might seem like an impossible
task, addressing the problems and providing solutions should be
at the head of conversations going forward.Comment by
Windows User: Note how in the conclusion to part 1, a solution
is promised.