Now that the Space Race is over, what is the point? Are we wasting our money? Should we cut their budget? When the cold war ended with the soviets in 1991, it sparked up a debate as to whether or not the funding for the National Aeronautics and space administration should be continued. Although it may seem like a simple fix, it has proved to be one of NASA’s greatest and most difficult challenges yet. In the article, “Should We Cut NASA Funding?” written by Keith Yost, he answers the questions that have been the topic of debate for over 20 years. He states that it is predicted that in the Florida conference, President Obama will talk about the reductions that will be made to NASA’s budget. In his article, Yost takes a clear position on the …show more content…
Specifically, the Red Herring logical fallacy was the direct cause of his ineffective argument. Throughout the whole article there are spots of logical fallacies which unveil the weaknesses in Yost’s claim. While introducing his first sub claim, which was the expensive costs of a NASA space shuttle he says “It is spending the sweat of our laborers, the genius of our scientists, the hopes of our children” (Yost). After giving us many examples, comparing the price of a space shuttles to things such as “50 million bushels of wheat”, he randomly jumps off topic. This logical fallacy is known as red herring. Yost went from wheat to laborers, scientists, and children, which makes his claim very hard to follow. While talking about but the money to better use it happens again, he says “Mr. levinger argues that NASA is small potatoes, a mere drop…… compared to, spending on military. But just because NASA is a small waste, or a waste among many, does not mean it isn’t waste…” (Yost). This is the first instance in which we see the name Mr. Levinger. This character doesn’t get introduced and we have no clue who he is. Also he is thrown into a quote that makes almost no sense which has logical fallacies written all over it. As the audience begins to ask questions, they begin to lose focus on your claim and argument. Yost’s credibility has doubted with the …show more content…
I completely disagree with his points because they are in accurate and display no backing of evidence. Yost’s main claim was that we should cut the NASA’s budget and focus more on humanity than “planting flags on planets” (Yost). The space program is not the only department within the National Aeronautics and Space Administrations control. In fact, there are over 15 different departments within NASA and one of those is the department of earth science and research. The Earth Science and research department within NASA is responsible fore conducting tests on global climate change, in hopes of figuring out the mysteries of global warming. By Cutting NASA’s budget it will not just decrease the space programs budget, like Yost’s believes, it will decrease the budget of every department within NASA. According to the article “The GOP attack on climate change science takes a big step forward” written by Michael Hiltzik, the Earth Science Department will be cut by nearly 20% losing over 323 million dollars, which will cripple their ability to research the global climate changes. Even by decreasing NASA’s budget Keith Yost’s wont be happy, because he didn’t do the proper research. Yost also said that the huge expenses that were going toward the militaries budget didn’t matter and that it wouldn’t change the outcome. According to “Defense Spending: Today’s
Now that the Space Race is over, what is the point? Are we wasting our money? Should we cut their budget? When the cold war ended with the soviets in 1991, it sparked up a debate as to whether or not the funding for the National Aeronautics and space administration should be continued. Although it may seem like a simple fix, it has proved to be one of NASA’s greatest and most difficult challenges yet.
Under the Harper government, hundreds of federal research facilities and programs, have faced cuts to their budgets or been shut down, facing outrage from scientists, politicians and Canadians alike. In six years the Harper government dismissed more than 20000 scientists and aided in the closing of hundreds of programs, ranging from climate change to ocean toxicity to public health. Despite these cuts, the office of the Minister of State for Science and Technology has stated “Our government has made record investments in science… We are working to strengthen partnerships to get more ideas from the lab to the marketplace and increase our wealth of knowledge” (CBC 1). Many of the scientific community cite these cuts to a refocusing of government,
Advocates for spending make a few points that can’t be ignored. William J Perry of Stanford University and former general John P. Abizaid argue that sequestration, or automatic cuts that are built into budgets, ought to go away. “We want to make two points crystal clear. First, sequester has precipitated an immediate readiness crisis; returning to sequester levels of funding in 2016 will lead to a hollow force. Second, the increases above sequester levels proposed thus far, while desirable, are nowhere near enough to remedy the damage which the Department has suffered and enable it to carry out its missions at an acceptable level of risk.
Between the years of 1947 and 1991 the USSR and the United States remained in a long period of tension known as The Cold War. This war was a state of political and economical in proxy wars such as the space race and the arms race the lead to the weakening of American society and laws. Marking the end of the Cold War in 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed due to their economic failure and their approach to the space race. As the Cold War intensified there was a significant increase in infrastructures and military, a shift in education, and there was an overall fear in society. Education in the United States began to focus on science instead of general education in an attempt to try and win the “space race” against the Soviet Union.
Underfunding NASA NASA’s huge budget cuts since the 70’s are no secret to anyone[1] , it has only been this low during its founding years. Yet most politicians and citizens still suggest more cuts, or even the elimination of the program. People have been talking about our declining economy, flawed political system, and unemployment rates. As such; some have looked at space exploration as an expensive, unneeded burden. However, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration is one of the greatest investments that has benefited our nation and we misuse the funds to let it continue its work.
"One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind. " This well known quote by the renowned astronaut Neil Armstrong forever marked the beginning of a new age as the Space Race came to its final chapter. The Space Race between the United States and the Soviet Union during the Cold War era was a pivotal period in the history of space exploration, where these two global superpowers aim to compete for technological superiority in military and space. While both the United States and the Soviet Union gained significant benefits from the Space Race in terms of technological advancements, scientific discoveries, and national prestige, the United States emerged as the primary beneficiary due to its long-lasting impact on space exploration and technological innovation.
By doing this, the funding that is already appropriated to the CRS would continue with the change being in how the funds are funneled from the budget office of the CRS itself. The CRS would have an overall operating budget, but it would have to be broken down into smaller pieces to compensate those analyzing issues for each federal agency. Just as with current policy related to requesting research services through the CRS, requests for services could only be made by Members of Congress. The disadvantage to proceeding in this manner would be if the Member is unsure of which research agency to submit their request to. Rather than proceed in such an unsure manner, the CRS would be mandated to provide Members with a means of directing their inquiry
In the beginning of the race, many failed to achieve this goal. They had lost the race for the first satellite, first unmanned lunar probe, and first human in space. NASA soon accomplished all of this shortly after the Soviet Union had but they were still losing the
It's sad that society can not trust their own politicians to be upfront about issues like climate change, but that is the reality we face. Instead, we have to hear the truth from entertainers like Jimmy Kimmel and Bill Nye to weed through the excessive tales of deceit for us. Additionally, NASA is backing them up. It seems they may be the only government agency that doesn't f**k with our intelligence. JIMMY KIMMEL GETS REAL ON CLIMATE CHANGE
The money coming from taxpayers should not be spent on the space program’s progress in space exploration. The money should be spent on something more realistic for the future generations. They could spend the money on saving the earth’s problems instead of looking for another planet. Also,instead of trying to explore space,the money could go to exploring the oceans. Only five percent of the ocean has be explored.
It wasn’t just about funding though, it was also about getting to the moon and placing a man there, getting past the boundaries and having further in-depth knowledge of our solar system. Kennedy’s
After witnessing the decline of new innovations by the world’s space programs since the ‘60s, he
To show the government is heading in the wrong direction we must make sure that we all know that Climate Change is caused by human activities. An article states, “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree that human activity and reliance on fossil fuels is warming our planet. And whether you ‘believe’ the science or not, we will be all be suffering the impacts of climate change, even more so if Trump refuses to act during his presidency” (Schleeter, “3 Things Scott Pruitt Has Actually Said About Climate Change”).
In 1999, the National Space Society issued a policy statement recommending that NASA cease development of
Professor Jack Hall, a paleoclimatologist, discovered drastic climate changes which he believed would affect the world population. He, therefore, voiced out about the problem during a press conference with the world’s leaders in New Delhi. Unfortunately, the American vice president, Raymond Becker, did not heed his advice until matters were out of control. "Our economy is every bit as fragile as the environment (Strieber, 2004)," the vice president says, dismissing Jack 's sensational claims. Due to the advancement of technology in the United States, there were several greenhouse gases responsible for global warming, and the citizens of United States contributed to the emission of these gases in many ways.