Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Should the Government be Funding NASA?

The real truth on the money we waste that could be going to NASA missions.
by

Lily Smith-Riel

on 16 May 2011

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Should the Government be Funding NASA?

Should NASA Funding be Cut or Continued? The Basic Text: NASA was founded in 1958 and spent years sending un manned space crafts in the unknown. In 1969, Niel Armstrong traveled into space, landed on the moon, and spoke his famous words: "One small step for man, one giant step for mankind." During the 1970s, NASA made other great advances in space exploration, including their Skylab space station.

Some claim that NASA lost it's way in the 1970s. But all we have seen are advances. What People Think of the Money Spent Some people claim that the the billions of dollars spent on NASA every year would be better spent, for example in improving education and providing opportunity for poor Americans. The Columbia disaster in 2003 when a shuttle was destroyed and seven astronauts died attention on NASA’s failings. The Pros and Cons Pros The 17 billion dollars spent on NASA each year is not worth it, there are few advances in the last couple of years. Cons The government does not put a high enough priorty on space exploration. Therefore, they should continued funding NASA. NASA is such a expensive part of the government budget and the money could be better used as Obama suggested in the early education and teaching of Math and Science. Cutting NASA from the federal budget would only cut less than one percent of the percent total. The federal budget alone spends almost a hundred times more on social programmes than they do on NASA. We should solve problems here on Earth rather than venture into space quite yet. Tackle hunger, disease, and the enviroment first. Even if Earth's huge social and enviromental problems could be solved by throwing more money at them, NASA's small budget would have no real impact. NASA is hugely bureaucratic and wasteful, tying thousands of the country's best minds in a complex system while other country's have more cost effective ways of launching missions. NASA's funding and management may not be perfect, that is the reason to reform and adjust them. Do not completely destroy the company all together. Manned space flights are hugely more expensive than unmanned missions because the rockets and craft needed to send people into orbit are much larger than those needed for robotic exploration. Also because so much has to be done to minimise risk. Manned missions can take on many more challenges they also have huge importance in focusing the attention in inspiring millions of young people to become engineers and scientists. My Opinion I think that the NASA funding should continue because there is much more to explore in space. Also, if we could solve the world's problems with more money, then we'd have doen it already. The government can produce as much money for Earth's problems but they obviously aren't gone. NASA's budget is such a small part of the entire budget it would hardly make a difference anyway. In conclusion, NASA funding should be continued.
Full transcript