Karthik Ganesuni

ECON175 - 0102
Should funding for NASA be continued?
For the past decade NASA has been heavily criticized for the size and management of its
budget. There have been debates about severing funding for NASA and thereby liberating the
federal government from NASAs obligations. NASAs shuttle disasters, indefinite ventures in
the form of the International Space Station and imprudent initiatives have left the agency with a
debacle dealing with the American public and the federal government. However, the
contributions that NASA has made to science and life on earth are undeniable; NASA has had
numerous missions that were successful, bringing the agency into the publicity for performing
and operating experiments in radical conditions. The technology that has derived from NASAs
experimentation, observation, and implementation are beneficial to the entire human race.
NASA was initiated in 1958 in response to the launching of Soviet satellite Sputnik 1.
Since being introduced in 1958, NASA has had its share of accomplishments, with what most
would consider their pinnacle achievement occurring a mere eleven years after inception, in
1969, when man would set foot on the moon. Subsequent to the Space Race and the disbanding
of the Soviet Union, NASAs perception in the publics eye began to diminish. The space shuttle
Challenger disaster exposed the public to the dangers involved with flying into space. In 1990,
one of NASAs most expensive projects, the Mars Observer, was simply lost in space. The Mars
Observer was put into orbit to gather data on Mars and help NASA expound upon theories about
life on Mars. NASA also came under heavy inquiry from the US Congress as many new ventures
were scrutinized as failures and others were regarded are insignificant and unworthy of the funds
from American taxpayers. Another setback, The Hubble Space Telescope, was launched into
orbit in 1990, but a lens error rendered the telescope inoperative until 1993, when NASA was
able to send astronauts to fix it. Beyond NASAs failures and internal problems, the agency has
long had an inability to associate with the American public and explain their initiatives. Surveys

Karthik Ganesuni
ECON175 - 0102
have shown that a significant portion of the American public believes the agencys budget
commands an incredible 20% of the federal budget. It is acuities like this that have led to
widespread public criticisms regarding NASAs budget and enterprises (Launius). Another issue
NASA faces is simply because it is the byproduct of being tied to the federal government. With
Congress and the White House having to approve the operational budget for new missions,
NASA is pressured to present the cheapest option on the table, in terms of pure finances, while
still being able to fulfill the mission guidelines. Between the negative perception from the public
and the constraints in the form of Congress and the White House, NASA is far from its blank
check days of the late 60s. However, it is simply not feasible to curtail funding for an
administration that once captivated the minds of people around the world with its
accomplishments.
NASA is under heavy criticism for the way that the agency is operated and managed.
Many people believe that NASA is overfunded and underperforming. Most Americans cannot
correctly deduce what percentage of the federal budget goes to NASA (Launius). The federal
budget of the United States in the fiscal year of 2010 was $3.6 trillion; NASAs budget during
this period was $18.7 billion. This amounts to a mere 0.05% of the total federal budget (Office of
Management and Budget, New Era). In comparison to the budgets of other undertaking by the
US government, NASA and its budget are seemingly insignificant. NASAs budget in 2009 was
$16.3 billion, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 provided $1 billion to the
agency. This act, along with the percentage increase NASA received from the federal budget
made NASAs budget in 2010 $18.7 billion. The Department of Defense during the fiscal year of
2010 received $533.7 billion. This is 14% of the federal budget (Office of Management and
Budget, New Era) (Carter and Cox). The Department of Transportation received $72.5 billion,
and in addition the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 added an additional $48.1

Karthik Ganesuni
ECON175 - 0102
billion to the Department of Transportation. This is almost four times the funding that NASA has
to work with.
NASA has to use the $18.7 billion allocated to it in a variety of ways. For the fiscal year
of 2010, NASAs budget was $18.7 billion or 0.05% of the federal budget. NASA uses this
money to: fund the safe flight of the Space Shuttle Program until its termination in 2010, fund
the development of new flight systems for America, fund the operation of the International Space
Station, and to fund the research of aviation safety (Office of Management and Budget, New
Era). In comparison to the budgets of other Departments, the budget for the Department of
Transportation was $72.5 billion during fiscal year 2010. The Department of Transportation uses
selected amounts of this money, approximately $43.22 billion, for the regulation of national
highways. This is more than 200% of NASAs total budget. The budget for the Department of
Defense was $533.7 billion in fiscal year 2010. The Department of Defense uses certain amounts
of its budget, approximately $80.64 billion, for research, development, testing, and evaluation of
military technologies (Carter and Cox).This alone is more than four times NASAs total budget.
NASAs budget is not only brutally overestimated by the American public, it is also grossly
limited by the federal government.
Public perception of NASAs budget has also been influential to government decisions
regarding NASA. Studies and surveys done on a sample of the public have revealed that the
Americans regard NASAs budget as an exceptionally large percentage of the federal budget.
100% of the people polled responded that they believed that NASAs budget commanded over
5% of the federal budget. This high of a percentage hasnt been seen since the Apollo missions in
the late 1960s let alone in the late 20th century and the 2000s. The highest percentage of people
surveyed have answered that NASAs budget was over 20% of the budget. These are unreal
percentages compared to the actually figure of 0.05% (Launius). NASAs inability to manage and

Karthik Ganesuni
ECON175 - 0102
advertise their budget and enterprises has disadvantaged it among voters and the American
public. Compared to many other departments and their initiatives, NASA is immensely beneficial
to the greater good, paying huge dividends despite its shortcoming regarding its budget.
In addition to the negative public perception and the stranglehold on finances, NASA
may have also fall victim to what is known as the life cycle theory. Conceived by Anthony
Downs to explain the aging process of a governmental organization, the life cycle theory
postulates that exogenous forces propel new bureaus through an unrelenting cycle of growth
and decline (McCurdy). Downs says that a new organization must pass through an initial
survival threshold to avoid early closure. Competition from other agencies fighting over the
same resources will make further growth harder. In addition, as opportunities for advancement
within the organization decrease, recruitment and stabilization of employees becomes harder.
Agencies become more bureaucratic as they age. This all contributes the inevitable decline of the
organization. Professor Howard McCurdy applies this theory to NASA to explain its fall from
grace. The Space Race and the inception of NASA accelerated the growth of NASA, past the
initial survival threshold. Between 1960 and 1969, NASAs budget expanded eightfold. In fact,
NASAs expansion outpaced the entire federal government, which only grows marginally. At its
pinnacle, President Nixon rejected a proposal to keep space activities at the levels seen during
the Apollo era. This, compounded with budgets cuts, negative public perception, and high profile
disasters led the White House to freeze NASAs budget at levels well below what they had been
in the 60s. New employment fell, and the NASAs workforce aged, scientists and engineers 2534 fell from 37% in 1966 to 12% in 1978 (McCurdy). The agency itself became more
bureaucratic as time went on, with more paperwork mandated by the federal government, and
accountability and traceability prioritized. Professor McCurdy ends his analysis with the thought
that as the government is increasingly utilizing science and technology to further their goals,

Karthik Ganesuni
ECON175 - 0102
whether it be national defense, medical research, and nuclear proliferation, it cannot constantly
create new agencies to upgrade the performance of older ones. This is particularly interesting
because technology NASA perfected over its existence is now being used at higher applications.
Satellites are the eyes of nations, and the government is limiting funding for the agency that
maintains them. The government should be finding ways to reverse the aging process for the
agencies that matter the most. Instead of imposing more bureaucratic standards, it should be
removing them so the agencies can function at the high level that they are capable of doing. Less
accountability may be the price for higher performance.
Six decades ago, NASA was established to counter the Soviets space advancements.
From that time forth NASA has been setting the standards for new scientific inventions and
innovations. NASA has always been about technological advancement for the betterment of life
on earth and in the future, space. Though there have been mishaps, tragedies and ill-advised
decisions throughout the years of operation, NASA has always progressed. The agency has
invented and innovated technologies that have changed the global landscape. NASAs innovation
of the satellite and countless other technologies has improved the quality and standard of life on
earth. NASAs budget isnt the biggest issue in this debate. NASAs budget is only a fraction of
the budgets of other government institutions. At 0.05% of the federal budget, NASAs budget
isnt significant on a financial scale, nor can reducing the budget have a substantial difference on
the economy. Furthermore, the current bureaucratic NASA is the result of decades of red tape
imposed by Congress to avoid funding operations that NASA strategized. The result is a NASA
that has the ability and will to support the undertakings of a country and it government, but not
the resources. Funding for NASA should not only continue, but increase as long as NASA
continues to be a major contributor to the sciences and technologies that the groundwork of our
nation is constructed on.

Karthik Ganesuni
ECON175 - 0102

Works Cited
Carter, Shan, and Amanda Cox. Obamas 2011 Budget Proposal. The New York Times. The
New York Times, 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
Launius, Roger. Public Opinion Polls and Perception of US human spaceflight. Spec. issue of
Space Policy (2003): 163-175. Academia. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
McCurdy, Howard E. "Organizational Decline: NASA and the Life Cycle of Bureaus."
Public Administration Review 51.4 (1991): 301-15. Print.
NASA. The Apollo 11 Mission. Spaceflight. NASA, 1 July 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
- - -. Artificial Satellites. NASA. NASA, 27 Nov. 2007. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
- - -. A Brief History of NASA. NASA. NASA, 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
- - -. The Hubble Space Telescope. NASA. NASA, 12 May 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
- - -. What is NASA. NASA. NASA, 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
Office of Management and Budget. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The
White House. The White House, 2010. Web. 29 Oct. 2014.
United States. Cong. U.S. Congress. A New Era of Responsibility. By Barack Obama and Office
of Management and Budget. Washington: OMB, 2010. PDF file.
\