Donovan Ortiz's List: Should NASA Funding Continue - Annotated Bibliography

Oleson G. Cutting nasa's budget would be a bad move [Internet]. Washington Post; 2012 [cited 2013 Oct 21]. Available from: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-05/business/35442104_1_space-program-international-space-station-new-space

Rather than looking at how much of a profit NASA has been bringing in to the United States over past decades, the Washington Post article points out how cutting the NASA budget would devastate the economy. With the amount of jobs within and joint with NASA, the US economy would suffer significantly. In a more optimistic look, the amount of jobs and programs created as a result of the establishment of commercial space flight would outweigh the costs by far, and avoid the negative impacts of a NASA shutdown.
Washington Post approaches the topic to support of NASA by exploring the avenue on how the termination of NASA would impact the United States now. In comparison to other speculative arguments, the article contains more political and statistical support for its argument.

Chamberlain K. Measuring the nasa stimulus. [Internet]. National Journal; 2010 [cited 2013 Oct 28]. Available from: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20100827_1798.php

Measuring the NASA Stimulus takes a more academic approach to the estimate of NASA's contribution to the United States economy. The article by Ken Chamberlain takes a look at some of the research conducted as early as the 60s. With no definite way of determining the profit gained from NASA, researchers can only theorize what the true worth amounts to. Agreeing upon the lack of a precise method measurement, different scientists have calculated revenue-to-cost ratios ranging from 2-to-1, all the way up to 14-to1. Similarly to Dr. Millis' article, Is NASA Really Worth the Cost, researchers believe that any return ratio exceeding 1-to-1 is considered a success when looking at the non-profit objectives of NASA.
The article provides a more in depth look at an aspect of NASA that is touched on in Dr. Millis' article. Due to the more professional style, Measuring the NASA Stimulus, serves as a better source of evidence regarding the economic profit of NASA.

Wilson J, Ross H. Space program benefits: nasa's positive impact on society [Internet]. nasa.gov; 2008 [modified 2008 Aug 27; cited 2013 Oct 25]. Available from: http://www.nasa.gov/50th/50th_magazine/benefits.html

Rather than focusing on the monetary contribution of NASA to the United States, the writing is more oriented around presenting the technological value of the program. Arguing that NASA plays a significant role in the development of revolutionary technology, much of the work and research conducted is not publicized enough. Due to the lack of presentation of the projects, the actual value of the program is shadowed under the raw costs of keeping the program alive.
NASA's article provides a way to view the significance of the program in an aspect not just dealing with the profit of the space program. Considering the fact that the information comes directly from NASA, also gives a better opportunity to obtain a more accurate awareness on what goes on within the administration itself.

Tyson N. Nasa's dwindling budget: why has america stopped reaching for the stars? [Internet]. The Week; 2012 [cited 2013 Oct 20]. Available from: http://theweek.com/article/index/227241/nasas-dwindling-budget-why-has-america-stopped-reaching-for-the-stars

The Week's NASA article is very different from other articles in support of the funding of NASA. In this case, a very thorough exploration of the importance of NASA provides readers with a number of reasons as to why America must continue to support its space program. By explaining how the existence of NASA has provided a foundation for the development to technology, the author claims that people discredit the influence NASA has had on the world. Without a space exploration program in place, and with no frontiers to conquer, there is no motive or inspiration to lead on the thinkers and problem-solvers of the future. As a program only requiring pennies from each tax payer, the resources gained from NASA are far greater than what the eye can see.
Unlike some of the other articles, The Week grants a view point from within the space industry. Rather than outsiders looking in on the worth of NASA, one can obtain a view from within the industry looking out on the world. Such a perspective allows one to better comprehend and see first hand how space exploration has contributed to the way of life.

Millis J. Is nasa really worth the cost? About.com; 2011 [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 16] . Available from: http://space.about.com/b/2011/02/01/is-nasa-really-worth-the-cost.htm

The About.com article discusses the topic on whether NASA is an organization worthy enough to receive government funding. In a more specific aspect, Dr. John Millis explains why he believes the existence of NASA has and will continue to be a beneficial investment to the United States and the rest of the world. The underlying strategy of the article is to present facts and data proving the importance of NASA, rather than just a heavily biased, unsupported opinion. One of Dr. Millis' strongest points is the economic support the program has provided. Although exact values can vary, estimates of the return profit from NASA exceed the amount of money invested. Millis claims that at the very least, "we break even."
While some bias may be present in his opinion, Dr. Millis demonstrates consideration and an open mind by responding to questions commonly asked by the opposing party. The presence of an approachable view makes the article all that more valuable and adds to the validity of the author's opinion.

Carson T. Public funding to nasa isn't worth it [Internet]. Carson's Daily; 2012 [cited 2013 Oct 18]. Available from: http://carsonsdaily.wordpress.com/2012/09/26/public-funding-to-nasa-isnt-worth-it/

Carson's Daily article on the funding of NASA is more of an informal review of NASA's impact on the United States. In his review, Carson claims NASA to be unworthy of the billions of dollars invested every year. Emphasizing the magnitude of NASA's annual budget, the argument states that the cost to sustain NASA is simply too high. Although the billions of dollars spent each year contribute to just a fraction of the total federal budget, the amount of funds dedicated towards NASA could be used in a much more effective manner. Rather than spending tax dollars on space exploration, Carson believes that improving aspects of life on Earth, such as education and infrastructure, would be a much smarter investment. Suggesting that NASA has outlived its usefulness in terms of the advancement of technology, the article diminishes the importance and value of NASA.
It is vital to look at a controversy from both parties. Carson's article provides a descriptive method to look at the funding of NASA in a negative way. Constantly referring to statistics and history, the author is able to support his opinion in an understandable point-of-view.

Yost K. Should we cut nasa funding? The Tech; 2010 [Internet]. [cited 2013 Oct 25]. Available from: http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N18/nasap.html

The MIT journalist makes argument against the continuation. Agreeing that NASA was important in previous decades, the author also believes that there are much better things to invest in rather than a program teasing awing possibilities such as the human exploration of Mars. Close to others opinions against NASA the article argues that the benefits of space exploration do not match the improvements that could be made on Earth with the same amount of capital. Every dollar spent on NASA could be a dollar spent to feed starving families, and the ill. Rather than striking hope, NASA is an act of human desperation and the desire to outsmart the "doomed" future on Earth.
Like other arguments against NASA, the article states the funds wasted on an investment with no real impact on the betterment of life on Earth. The is important because it gives a glimpse on what the future of the world believes. Rather than hearing the claims of the wise and experienced, one can obtain a fresher perspective from the younger generation the world will soon depend on.

Spudis P, Zubrin R. Spudis and zubrin: nasa's mission to nowhere [Internet]. The Washington Times; 2010 [cited 2013 Nov 3] . Available from: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/31/nasas-mission-to-nowhere/

Rather than completing shutting down NASA, Spudis and Zubrin inform the reader of what an effective space program would be. Examining the way the administration functions today, the article suggests that no significant progress is achieved. By setting goals that cannot be realized for decades, NASA has the room and time to idle around with the billions of dollars invested. Instead, the authors argue that an effective NASA would plan out realistic goals, identify resources, develop the technology, and execute the objective.
The Washington Times article is important and impressive in that unlike other opinions, the argument is not completely against the shutdown of NASA, and provides points on how it could be a better, more effective program. It is important to not just have a valid argument but to have a suggestions as well. The article provides a valid opinion due to the fact that it also considers the potential of NASA, rather than focusing on just the negatives.

DeGroot J. The space race is a pointless waste of money [Internet]. The Telegraph; 2009 [cited 2013 Nov 2] . Available from: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4807506/The-space-race-is-a-pointless-waste-of-money.html

Arguing against the continuation of NASA, Jerry DeGroot, from The Telegraph, reveals another issue regarding space program. Like with many others voting against NASA, DeGroot discusses how the development of space exploration is devastating tax payers and the reputation of what NASA has done for the world. In addition to DeGroot's more generic reasons, however, the article stands out in pointing out how the promise of the discovery and exploration of a habitable planet, along with other misleading objectives, are just used as bait to attract more money from tax payers and away from more important programs. The reality is that NASA is just leeching money with no significant progression in the recent years, according DeGroot's argument.
DeGroot's article dives into the topic of NASA's spending with a more incriminating investigation and analyzation the program's efforts. Using the unimpressive progression and skeptical vows from NASA, the article makes a strong case for its argument against the administration, and with the small variety of reasons against the program, DeGroot provides a useful and refreshing mindset.