Is NASA Viable? Is ANY Federal Program Viable?

Opponents of space travel argue about NASA’s cost over-runs, that it is economically unviable, dangerous to human life, etc.

Not to justify financial waste by any means, it must be pointed out that there is not a single area of any government-run program that does not waste taxpayer money, in one way or another.

While the $18 billion NASA budget is huge, as a number, it is 0.6% of the federal budget, showing anyone that government expenditures, with a budget of approximately $3 trillion, are enormous.

By way of comparison, the National Institutes of Health are funded with about $30 billion while US military and economic foreign aid is around $45 billion.

When looking at ways to cut federal spending one must look at what is most alarming in budgets: earmarks.

Yes, Capitol Hill (Democrats, Independent and Republican alike), we have your number!

This excess pork represents monies inserted into other, larger, bills, that benefit only the constituents of an elected representative with no public vote and little to no oversight. During 2006, earmarks containing $29 billion in spending were inserted into larger, almost always, unrelated bills.

One report stated that in 2005 the figure was $48 billion contained in some 16,000 earmarks.

However, when comparing NASA to other programs (but especially earmarks) one must also consider that the secondary benefits of the Shuttle program are, in many areas, extremely beneficial to society and mankind.

Although it may be argued that some or even all of the technology spinoffs would eventually have been developed in the private sector, it is noted in NASA’s Spinoff journal that technology developed and utilized in the Space Shuttle program appear in the following areas: health and medicine; transportation; public safety; consumer goods; environmental management; computer technology; and industrial productivity.

A few of these shuttle spinoffs are: an implantable heart resynchronization device, an improved form of LASIK eye surgery, environmentally friendly lubricants, advanced fireproof insulations for a variety of vehicles, video-enhancing software, infrared cameras for detecting fires, insulation for homes and clothing, biodegradable pesticides, food production, and bar coding for inventory control.

Regardless of one’s political leanings, it can easily be argued, and proven, that the Space Shuttle program, and NASA in general, do provide citizens with incredible quality of life benefits.

Not all government-run agencies can make that claim. And ear marks? Not even worth discussing.

Hopefully, the elected men and women in Washington DC will see fit to go beyond the voices and opinions of special interest groups and actually fund projects that do, indeed, have positive benefit for all.

And they need to cease and desist all earmarking of legislation.

Over For Now.

Main Street One