The city lights have erased
the stars. Busy lives have no time to
stop and watch the night sky. Space has
become just another fixture; a kitchen light no one notices. Many have grown bored, not even aware of how
much more we have to learn. If new
knowledge surfaces constantly on Earth, which we have thoroughly explored,
imagine how much unexplored territory has to teach us.
From Michael H. Benton's Blog |
Following the Apollo era in
the 1960s, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (or NASA for short)
has continued to lose funding from the United States government. Although the actual amount of money has
increased, the percentage of the US budget going towards NASA has decreased
greatly. From the years 1963 to 1969,
NASA held over 2 percent of the federal budget each year, with the highest
point at 4.41 percent in 1966. In the year 2012,
17.8 billion dollars is
being spent on NASA, which equates to .48 percent of the budget; the lowest the percentage has been
since 1959.
From Joe Lewis's Blog |
To put things
into perspective, I will parallel government spending on NASA to spending of
the Department of Defense. In comparison
to how much is being spent on military actions, the cost of NASA is
miniscule. The ongoing wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan cost 10.5 billion dollars per month. This equates to 126 billion dollars every
year. This means that every year, more
than seven times the amount of NASA’s budget is spent on the wars
overseas. And according to Joe Lewis, “This
does not include the various costs of running our military, which appear in the
Defense line.” The second Iraq war alone
may have cost up to one trillion dollars in direct costs to the US. It is baffling to me that so much more of the
US budget is spent on warfare than on technological advancements and furthering
our knowledge of science and the universe.
Recent cuts to NASA’s budget have also affected America’s relationship with other nations. NASA has had to scrap two flagship missions planned with the European Space Agency due to a lack of funds (Wanjek). The first is the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the second is the International X-ray Observatory (IXO). The ESA had already laid down half of the cost of these missions, and now that NASA has pulled out, “it is now scrambling for a plan B, while its trust in NASA has plummeted” (Wanjek). This understandably poses a problem for America’s reputation, as space programs in other countries may now have reason to doubt NASA’s reliability.
Recent cuts to NASA’s budget have also affected America’s relationship with other nations. NASA has had to scrap two flagship missions planned with the European Space Agency due to a lack of funds (Wanjek). The first is the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and the second is the International X-ray Observatory (IXO). The ESA had already laid down half of the cost of these missions, and now that NASA has pulled out, “it is now scrambling for a plan B, while its trust in NASA has plummeted” (Wanjek). This understandably poses a problem for America’s reputation, as space programs in other countries may now have reason to doubt NASA’s reliability.
The video above shows Neil DeGrasse
Tyson, an American astrophysicist, speaking at the University of Buffalo. Tyson is responding to a student’s question, “Would
you care to discuss the recent changes to the nation’s space program?” Tyson comes back to this with an inspiring
and stimulating response. He explains
what NASA means to us as a nation, and how important it is. In his words, “The most powerful agency on
the dreams of a nation is currently underfunded to do what it needs to be
doing.” I
strongly agree with Tyson that funding to NASA should not be cut, it should be
raised. In cutting funding and not realizing the importance of NASA, our
nation as a whole has stopped dreaming about tomorrow.
Why should the US government fund NASA? There are many arguments claiming that they should not. Some people believe that the money spent on NASA should be put to “better” use, such as helping the nation’s poor and paying off the national debt. As I demonstrated before, the NASA budget is very small fraction of the US budget. I do not think that people realize just how small the number is, and this misperception may account for some of the negativity. Another argument made is that NASA does not do anything beneficial for society. However, this claim is profoundly unjust, as the benefits of NASA can be seen in our everyday lives and throughout the world.
Why should the US government fund NASA? There are many arguments claiming that they should not. Some people believe that the money spent on NASA should be put to “better” use, such as helping the nation’s poor and paying off the national debt. As I demonstrated before, the NASA budget is very small fraction of the US budget. I do not think that people realize just how small the number is, and this misperception may account for some of the negativity. Another argument made is that NASA does not do anything beneficial for society. However, this claim is profoundly unjust, as the benefits of NASA can be seen in our everyday lives and throughout the world.
NASA has also developed several helpful,
and occasionally life-saving, inventions.
Among these inventions are memory foam, shoe insoles, cordless power
tools, water filters, lifeshears, cochlear implants, and the insulin pump. Each of these inventions was originally created
to assist space exploration, but there is no doubt that each has made countless
more peoples’ lives much easier. For
example, water filters were initially meant to provide astronauts with clean
water in space. The water filters many
people use today were adapted from the technology used by NASA. Similarly, memory foam was designed to
cushion aircraft seats in order to ensure safer landings. NASA has made many more useful technological advancements
and discoveries other than these.
The NASA Biocapsule. Picture from Gizmodo |
Perhaps one of the most
intriguing and remarkable of these breakthroughs is what is known as the “NASA Biocapsule.” While on missions in space,
astronauts do not have access to doctors.
Therefore, if they were to fall ill, it would be very difficult for them
to receive treatment, which could pose serious problems for the mission and the
astronaut’s health. This was the original
incentive behind the Biocapsule. The Biocapsule
is a device made out of carbon nanotubes which is implanted under a person’s
skin. When implanted, this device will
basically be able to diagnose and treat a person as problems arise, before the
person is even aware of any problems.
Gizmodo describes a scenario in which Biocapsules would be advantageous:
“Picture this: An astronaut is going to Mars. The round-trip journey will take between two and three years. During that time, the astronaut will not have access to a doctor, and there's a lot that can go wrong with the human body in space. So, prior to launch, the astronaut is implanted with a number of NASA Biocapsules. A very small incision is made in the astronaut's skin for each Biocapsule (probably in the thigh), which is implanted subcutaneously. It's outpatient surgery that requires only local anesthetic and a stitch or two to close the wound. But after it's complete, the astronaut's body is equipped to deal with a whole host of problems on its own.”
The NASA Biocapsule can not
only be used by astronauts, but it can also be used by people here on
Earth. That is why this device is a
remarkable breakthrough in medicine. The
Biocapsule can serve many different purposes on Earth, including delivering
insulin to diabetics. This would make
the lives of diabetics much easier, as they would no longer have to worry about
watching their blood sugar levels or remember to bring insulin with them
everywhere they go. The Biocapsule would
take care of these things. The
Biocapsule would also greatly improve the lives of cancer patients. A Biocapsule could be implanted very close to
a patient’s tumor, where it could deliver chemotherapy directly to the area. These are only a couple of the potential
benefits of the NASA Biocapsule.
It is obvious that people do
not realize just how little of the federal budget is spent on NASA. It is a tiny fraction of the budget, and now
is not the time to cut more funding.
They are a necessary organization because they constantly produce
knowledge and technology that benefit society, and will help secure our
future. Any claim that NASA does not do
anything to help civilization is outrageous, as NASA’s accomplishments can be
seen everywhere. I believe that if
anything, NASA’s budget should be raised.
Works Cited
Wanjek, Christopher.
"The Death Of Astrophysics?." Mercury 40.3 (2011): 11. Academic
Search Complete. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
1.) Does your partner's essay identify a problem and offer a possible solution to the problem? What is the problem? What is the solution offered? If you are having trouble understanding the problem or solution, how might your partner clarify their position?
ReplyDeleteThe problem in the essay is that the US national budget does not allocate enough money towards NASA.
2.) Does the argument identify different angles of vision and explain why they are important to the audience? Which ones are the most interesting? Are their any angles that you feel might help their argument?
"Many have grown bored, not even aware of how much more we have to learn." I think that the angle of vision used here is that of an space enthusiast or just a normal person interested in space. She is saying that the national government needs to pay more attention to NASA because these kinds of people are not educated enough on space and stars.
3.) Does your partner identify their own angle of vision, or a persona that they advocate from? Is there anything your partner could do to help clarify their angle of vision?
My partner is not finished with her essay but so far I think that she is creating her own angle of vision that she is an advocate of funding NASA more in our budget.
4.) Does the essay employ rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos, kairos) in a way that you feel is appropriate for the argument? Is there any advice you have to offer of ways to improve the rhetorical appeal of their argument?
So far in Abbie's essay she uses a lot of logos. "In the year 2012, it holds .48 percent of the budget; the lowest the percentage has been since 1959." She uses this quote to compare to the 4.41 percent in 1966 which really puts in perspective how little NASA is funded in our government. Also her graph helps show how little it is funded by using a logos appeal
5.) Does the essay use multiple modes (video, images, audio, text), and do they help frame or support the argument? If so, how so? If not, how might your partner resolve this for you as a reader?
Yes, so far Abbie has used great examples of pictures to help solidify her point. The video also plays a great role in making her argument.