4/28/2016; Unit 3 Reflection

A Reflection

            “How much would you pay.. for the universe?” Over the course of my research, this is the question that keeps coming up (Degrasse-Tyson). NASA and the space industry has been an interest of mine for a long time, evident in my decision to choose Aerospace Engineering as my career path, so when I got to put that interest towards something meaningful, I couldn’t wait to get started. Coming into this final unit, I had zero experience with any type of video maker/editor, but the prospect of it really interested me, so I decided to give it a try. Over the course of the last two units that I have been working on this topic, I have visited dozens of websites and have watched many hours of YouTube videos, all with the goal of producing an end product that I can use to make an impact on the World. Even if only ten people ever watch my video or read my unit two blog, I will feel content that I helped spread the word for this worthy cause.

            Going into this final unit, I would be lying if I said that the prospect of creating my own alternative media outlet didn’t scare me a little bit. I have used presentation software like PowerPoint frequently throughout my academic career, but to me, it just didn’t seem like an ordinary PowerPoint presentation could pack the punch that I wanted or imagined. The night after we viewed some projects of past students, I went home and viewed some additional videos, and was inspired by the way some of the videos I saw informed me and moved me in a way I didn’t think possible from a two minute clip. In addition, I saw the format of a short video as a more valuable media channel than some of the alternatives, because, unlike a presentation or the like, a video is a stand-alone outlet that allows me to spread my ideas to viewers even when my physical presence is not feasible. In the modern age of technology, long reports and presentations often fail to compete for our attention compared to short snippets and videos. When choosing which media source I was going to use for this project, I had no doubt that creating a short video would allow me to reach a greater audience than my unit 2 report could ever have. What also contributed to my decision to go with a video format was my desired audience. As a proponent for an increased allocation of budget for NASA, my audience isn’t really one small group of people, but every person across the nation. Everyone who could possibly watch my video is responsible for determining things like the federal budget because everyone has a say in our democracy. More than anything, then, my job is simply to educate people on the issue and raise awareness for what I believe to be an injustice in our society. The more people I reach and get to watch my video, the more I will consider myself successful. For this to happen effectively, I needed to use a media outlet that, above all, incorporated ease into the viewing process, and made my stance very straightforward and compelling.

           In order to make my argument for this unit as compelling and clear as possible, I came to understand the value in listening to other people’s criticism. Listening to what others have to say and getting their opinions is very important to me because, since everyone is part of my target audience, I feel it is necessary to understand what types of things appeal to many different types of people. One of the most important pieces of feedback I received for this unit came all the way back in unit one during one of our very first assignments, but has stayed with me all semester. During our unit one peer review, Max O'Connell wrote on my blog that my analysis and choice of sources could have been strengthened by touching “upon how some of the positive factors of technology have influenced society,” in addition to the negative factors I had focused on and centered my project around. This hit me and left a permanent mark because I knew he was right. When I am doing a project, and trying to make a single argument in that project, I find it often very easy to overlook the opposing evidence and viewpoints of that argument because any opposing evidence would seem to contrast the point I am trying to make. On the contrary, however, I came to realize, at that point and throughout the semester, that there is value in displaying all opinions when making a case. Showing both sides of an argument is important, I believe, because it adds sophistication to an argument, and shows that a person didn’t base their own standpoint off misguidance. Rather, covering multiple sides of an argument shows that the author put in the time to address and consider all possibilities. As much as I hated peer reflection, I do see the value in it, and do think it can be extremely useful. For this unit, the review and insight I got did not come from my classmates, but from some friends of mine who were very knowledgeable on the subject. Before I was completely done with my video, but at a point when I had the main structure down, I showed it to Matthew Wood and Zachary Harter, two Aerospace Engineering majors, and two of my friends. Since my argument, and really whole topic in general, relies on some knowledge of what exactly NASA does on a day to day basis, these two were probably more qualified than the general public, and thus more than qualified to help me. It was interesting at first conducting peer review with people outside of my writing class, but what they had to say about my project was quite useful and helped me make the changes that I needed to make, which included adding more background info and diversifying some of the visuals and rhetorical techniques I used in my project.

            One of the interesting parts of this project was sharing it with not just my friends, but also with other people beyond the scope of my academic career. Since my argument genuinely concerns everybody, I went about sharing it in a couple different ways. In order to make as large a direct impact as possible, I took the initiative to contact our local representative here in Syracuse, John Katco. Back in unit two, I emailed his office my initial pitch, and explained my stance on the subject. This unit I also followed up by sending his office a link to my video. While I am still waiting for a response, I am content whether I receive one or not, because every voice matters in a matter like this. In addition, I also posted a link to my video, along with some additional information, on my Facebook page because I think it is the most effective way I could have reached a large audience. Based on the research I have conducted, and my life experiences in general, I think the biggest hurdle in getting NASA proper funding is undoing the false assumptions and beliefs many people have about the agency and about our federal budget. By sharing my work on Facebook, I feel I have completed my duty to educate as many people as possible, and have given many the tools necessary for them to make their own decisions. I also feel I have succeeded in spreading the word of this national issue, and one that needs to be addressed urgently because I don’t think many voting citizens are aware of the current situation of NASA.

            Throughout the eons, man has looked up into the black abyss of the night sky and wished there was some way he could possibly know what it was like outside our own planet. During the 1960’s, we did what many thought could never be done: put a man on the moon. We now find ourselves at a precarious position: stuck deciding between what will aid the nation now, and what will inspire growth and prosperity one or two decades down the road. Diverting tax dollars away from technological research and development, and towards social programs may help Americans in the short run, but what happens when that money dries up? In order for our nation to remain on top, we must not just look at the needs of today, but also at the needs of ages to come through investment in all sectors of technological innovation; by increasing NASA’s budget by a mere half-penny on the tax dollar, “we [could] transform the country from a sullen, dispirited nation, weary of economic struggle, to one where it has reclaimed its 20th century birthright to dream of tomorrow" (DeGrasse-Tyson).

Sources:

DeGrasse-Tyson, Neil. "Dr Neil DeGrasse Tyson Graduation Speech – Video & Transcript." Graduation Speeches RSS. N.p., 8 Mar. 2012. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.   

Frank, Adam. "Stuck On Earth: The U.S. Innovation Deficit." NPR. NPR, 29 Mar. 2016. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

Kelly, Marie-Louise. "NASA Mission: Orion's Next Step." NPR Morning Radio. NPR, 4 Feb. 2016. Web. 27     Apr. 2016.

Mann, Adam. "Why We Can't Send Humans to Mars Yet, and How We'll Fix That (Wired UK)." Wired UK.         N.p., 31 May 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2016.

4/28/2016; Unit 3 Portfolio

Final Project

Preface:

50 Years ago, America was a much different place than it now is. We had an unmistakable identity, a thriving economy, and more than anything.. an unquenchable thirst to dream of tomorrow. 50 years ago, America crushed the rest of the world when it came to innovation and technology, and American kids dreamed of growing up to become engineers and scientists. Over these past 50 years, we have coasted on the innovation of days gone by, become complacent with where we are. Currently, however, other countries like China are catching up, and even overtaking us in this key area. This innovation deficit is a problem only devoted and sustained investment can correct. By investing in our future through allocating tax dollars towards centers of innovation like NASA, by increasing the budget of NASA from half-a-penny on the tax dollar to a full penny, the fire of innovation can be relit, and we can learn again to dream of tomorrow…..

Video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk5ohA5gOmA

4/14/2016; Graphic Novel Review

So What Exactly Does Happen to Our Garbage?

            I have never been one to really read graphic novels, but after reading Trashed by Derf Backederf, I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. Not only did this full length novel keep me so enthralled that I found it difficult to put down the book even once I was well past my 50 page quota, but it also informed me on a current issue that I apparently didn’t know nearly as much about as I thought: waste disposal in America. From cover to cover, we are taken through the roller coaster that is the life of a current waste disposal expert, or “garbage man” as they are more frequently known. On one side, the almost comedic and definitely entertaining daily experiences of a college dropout turned garbage collector Dan McCoy is enough to keep the audience in awe that such events could possibly happen. On the other hand, however, Backederf does a masterful job at mixing in statistics and facts that show just how ineffective our current waste disposal system is. Unlike many novels, this book goes beyond just trying to entertain an audience, it tries to do this while also calling for change. Day after day, season after season, garbage men spill their blood and sweat for minimal pay so that we can live the civilized lives we know and have come accustomed to. As a former garbage collector himself, Backderf knows the atrocities of the profession as well as anybody, and knows the hardships that one faces in this profession on a daily basis. In addition to raising awareness for the unappreciated garbage man, backderf’s insight on the staggering amount of waste our nation produces, and the system for disposing it, makes this story one truly worth reading, and might even make you think twice next time you go to throw something in the garbage.

4/7/2016; Documentary Review Analysis

The Art of Reviewing

          Over the course of my 19 years of existence, I have never been one to relish the genre of documentary films. Throughout my whole life I have not seen but a handful of these types of movies, and many of the ones I have seen have come off as not worth the two hours of my life they took to watch. One documentary, however, the American classic, “Super-Size Me,” starring and directed by Morgan Spurlock, goes against many of my typical feelings. I have seen this unique film a couple of times, and when I think of a documentary, this is the first, and sometimes only, film that comes to mind. After reading the NY Times review linked below, written by A.O. Scott in 2004 when the film premiered, I was interested and surprised with just how much a documentary review might have to offer in its own right. Rather than simply giving an overview of the film and offering the authors opinions, as I subconsciously expected going in, the review did a very good job of actually introducing readers to many of the arguments and positions the film takes on the fast food industry. Through a mix of subtle humor, intriguing tidbits of information, and insight on the subject in general, I feel like I would be able to get more out of the film now than I did the first time I watched it, possessing only minimal outside knowledge. To me, I think a good review should have a higher purpose than just trying to influence people whether or not to watch a film. Especially when it comes to the genre of documentary, reviews should educate readers regardless of if the reviewer supports the claims of the documentary. Any good review, in my opinion, should open doors to new ways of thinking that the general movie watcher might not think of. I have the Rotten Tomatoes rating to let me know if a film is worth watching or not; if I am going to read a whole article, I hope there is something more it can offer.

http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9C0CE5DC163CF934A35756C0A9629C8B63

3/29/16; Unit 2 Reflection

Reflection

            While it may not be on the front covers of every newspaper, the NASA budget debate is still a hot topic in today’s politics. Over the past few years, the unveiling of NASA’s new space project, the “Space Launch System,” which is being developed and constructed with the hopes of carrying man to the moon, and eventually Mars, has renewed some hope into the previously desolate government agency, but the fight is far from over. NASA only receives a small fraction of the money received by other government sectors, and with a budget that comes out to be only .5% of the federal budget, the awe-inspiring new project has had trouble getting started because of financial restrictions. If NASA is going to remain a central part of Americas identity, as it has come to be over the years, we can no longer sit idly by and slowly let the life drain out of the once proud agency.

              When formulating my approach to this essay I wanted to directly speak towards the very people that have the power to do something about the budget: united states politicians and lawmakers. I also came to realize, however, that this “issue” is has a much larger scope than just politicians. I think in many ways, the American public has come to be misinformed and misguided about NASA over the years for a variety of reasons, and if NASA is going to make a run at a return to prominence, it is the general public of America that is going to put it there, not the few people who work in Washington or Albany. For this reason, I tried in my essay not only to push my opinion onto others, but I also tried to educate all readers, whoever they may be, about NASA and America’s current role in the space frontier in general. In another way, since the focus of our class is the broad subject of technology, I also wanted to tie all my research and opinions back into something that anybody can relate to: the technology that takes a part in each and every one of our lives. In addition to influencing my readers into believing in the mindset that something needs to be done about the current budget of NASA, I also wanted to show them that there are larger and more important sides to evolving technology than the smartphones and tablets that consume our lives.

              Initially, I wasn’t sure if the topic I chose was going to be a good one because I didn’t really know how much the general public really cared about space exploration these days, but to my surprise, the internet, and everyone I talked to, had a ton to say on the subject. In the first activity of the unit, where we were supposed to ask people questions about a topic, I was somewhat surprised by how opinionated most people were on the subject. Most everyone I asked had strong feelings either one way or the other on whether more taxpayer dollars should be devoted to NASA, and even those who weren’t extremely knowledgeable on the details of the argument still had reasons why they felt one way above the other. I also found that, in general, people were more interested in the whole topic of space and space exploration than I would have thought. Likewise, the internet was also somewhat ablaze with opinions and useful facts on the subject. No matter what obscure question I typed into the google search bar, there were dozens of quality responses there to help me strengthen my argument. Even though I didn’t directly include them into my argument, I was extremely impressed that highly acclaimed scientists in the industry, like Bill Nye and Neil Degrasse Tyson, have actively fought for the same principles I pushed for in my own essay. If any more research is to be done, I think the argument could only be strengthened by finding out exactly what a raise in budget of 10%, 20%, etc. would mean for NASA and the quality of product they would be able to put out.

              In regards to my original pitch, I remain in waiting for a response from representative John Katco, who I sent my pitch to, however, this isn’t completely unexpected. In my particular case, I think a better reflection of my original pitch is the responses and interest I received from the people I questioned. The fact that the questions I asked and the subject I brought up stirred a lot of opinions in people shows that people do still have at least some level of interest in Americas Space program. What I am pushing for isn’t something that is going to happen overnight, and NASA will probably never return to the level of prominence they one once had, nor should they. All I can do is continue to shed light on the true facts behind what NASA means to America, and who knows, maybe one day I will live to see men on planets I never thought possible.

3/29/16; Unit 2 Project

One More Step for Mankind

             From the depths of the deep darkness and static that poured into living rooms across the country, one immortal line broke the silence and put meaning to a millennium: “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” In less than a decade, the American space program was able to transform a long-shot goal into arguably the biggest scientific achievement of the twentieth century. These ten simple words, uttered by a single man, represented the collective feelings of an entire nation. At long last, years of hard work and billions of taxpayer dollars had finally become worth it. For the first time since Columbus, the tangible world as we knew it was expanding, and with it, the realm of possibilities. To many, our American manned space system seems to have regressed since the time of the Apollo missions, and the truth is, they are mostly right. For a wide variety of different reasons, we are not even capable of returning to the moon at the moment, let alone expanding our reach to Mars. As it stands, our technology is closer to allowing us to travel to Mars than at any point in our history, yet major technological roadblocks still stand in the way, and the American public refuses to supply the financial and moral support needed to finish the project. If we want to see a man on Mars before the end of our lifetimes, the time to act is now (Bergin).

              Fifty years ago, the world was a much different place than it now is. The design and construction of the Apollo spacecraft, and accompanying Saturn rocket, had a much larger socioeconomic impact on the American public than any science experiment in history. From the launch of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, in 1957 until the Apollo moon landing twelve years later, the space race provided an avenue outside the battlefield in which earth’s two superpowers could wage war. Following President Kennedy’s famous guarantee in 1961 to “land a man on the moon… before the decade is out,” failure truly was not an option (Garber). Even with a processing system less powerful than a modern cell phone, America was able to put men on the moon, a feat many believed could not be done. Spurred by the surprise Russian launch of Sputnik, and the fear of what this launch represented, Americans felt like they had no other choice but to take drastic measures in the waning years of the 1950’s. Fueled by overarching fear and scientific ambition, the 1960’s marked a new era in scientific exploration. Over a ten year period, the American government spent a whopping 25 billion dollars towards the ultimate creation of the Apollo spacecraft, the equivalent of well over 170 billion dollars in today’s money. In the immediate aftermath of Kennedy’s space promise, NASA’s budget was increased by some 500% over its previous mark; America was determined to put a man on the moon, and no cost was too great (The Space Race).

              Today, however, NASA receives less than 1/5 the budget it did during the Apollo era after being adjusted for inflation, and much of that money is surprisingly spent on things such as climate research and aircraft development. When it comes to technology, Americans are all too willing to fork over piles of cash to get their hands on the latest iPhone or laptop, but when it comes to technology that can actually make an impact on the word and the greater good, many Americans are far too tight-pocketed. Naysayers claim that the money NASA receives would serve a better cause if it were spent here on earth instead, but if Americans are willing to spend $700+ on a new cell phone every two years, then they can surely handle the $8/year tax increase that would be required to return to NASA to global prominence. Over the course of the 2016 fiscal year, NASA is slated to take in 18.5 billion dollars of the federal budget, which is no small amount by any standards. In the big picture, however, this amount corresponds to less than 1% of the total federal budget for 2016, making financial resources more of limiting factor to space exploration than any technological factor (Brooks). When questioned in a 1997 poll, the average American estimated that 20 percent of the nations budged went toward NASA and space exploration, explaining why many were, and still are, so reluctant to expand the budget of NASA; so where does this huge misunderstanding come from?

This is not the first time that our space program has faced economic restrictions, however. Nearly fifty years ago, America faced a similar problem: during the 1970’s NASA proposed a massive project that would have put men on Mars, built an international space station, and even colonized the moon, but because of long term budget gaps, that project, along with every major project since, has failed to get off the ground (Deng). Based on the rate of scientific growth of the 1960’s and what we were able to accomplish during that period, there is no doubt to me that putting a man on Mars is not a matter of “can we,” but a matter of “are we willing to.” Since the late 1970’s, the idea of putting a man on Mars has seemed like the carrot dangling in front of us; always so close, but always just out of reach. Just three years from now we will have reached the 50^th anniversary of Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, and maybe then there will be enough renewed interest to support the push to put a man on Mars, but at the current moment, the motivation just isn’t there. Just this month, the astronaut legend himself, Neil Armstrong, voiced his opinion on the matter, saying that he expects 2040 to be a reasonable date to see a man on Mars, a date that fits the beliefs of many in the industry with knowledge. Essentially, his logic comes from the fact that assuming that 2019 milestone does raise enough interest in the space program to jumpstart the program, he believes it would still take 20 years for the vision to actually become reality (Galant).

In the technology-obsessed America we now know, it truly is a shame that our countries’ space program isn’t seen for what it is truly capable of producing. I think that many people see NASA at this point as sort of a pot to throw leftover change into at the end of the month, but many don’t see the economic and technological impacts the program has on our everyday lives. At a cost of roughly $25 billion dollars, the total cost of putting the first man on the moon still stands as one of the most expensive endeavors ever carried out by the United States government, but what many people don’t realize is that within space expenditures like this, NASA isn’t just blasting their money off into space, the money invested into the space program is reinvested into the economy through economic kickbacks and job creations (Deng). According to the Midwest Research Institute of Kansas City, Missouri, the roughly $25 billion spent on the Apollo Mission over a decade span between 1958 and 1969, had already returned $52 billion to the US economy by the year 1971 when the research was conducted, and was expected to top $175 billion in total kickbacks and income tax collections by the year 1987 (Brooks). The thing the general public needs to understand is that space research is about so much more than just discovering the secrets of tomorrow, it is an investment both for our economy and for the future of man; every dollar devoted to NASA is another dollar that is going back into the US economy, either through direct NASA payroll or through one of the infinite number of independent contractors. Even for the government all is not lost. Through the creation of jobs and business sector output, the government reclaims much of the money back through income taxes, meaning that the long term cost of many large projects is actually significantly lower than advertised.  Naysayers of the NASA program are quick to point out the large price tag on the agency, but hide the fact that over the last several decades, every dollar spent on NASA has returned 10 dollars to the national economy, pointing that NASA is not the money pit many make it out to be, but rather an investment for the future, one that can help lead towards the long term success of the nation(Atkinson).

The never-ending quest for the latest and greatest technologies has influenced the direction of societal evolution probably more than any other one thing over the past couple of decades, but when it comes to manned space exploration within recent years, just the opposite reaction seems to be occurring to the general public. It seems to me like, because people think the technologies associated with space exploration won’t help them farther their image or status in society, they aren’t willing to give up the same things they would for a new smartphone or smart-tv. In reality, however, the technologies NASA produces impact our daily lives more than hardly anyone could imagine. Even if one isn’t interested in uncovering the great mysteries of outer space, probing for alien life forms, or understanding the nature of space and time, the benefits NASA provides, both financially and technologically, couldn’t be more pronounced even here at home. Even with the measly funding it now receives, NASA still leads the way in many areas of American innovation including disciplines that stray from aeronautic or astronautic travel. Without NASA, we would not have memory foam, cordless power tools, solar panels, freeze dried food, or any other of the seemingly infinite number of technologies developed by NASA, a dedication to innovation forever insured through the Space Act of 1958, which states that “NASA's research and technological innovations must benefit everyone, not just astronauts” (Mann). In short, without the technology that NASA unlocks on their path to greater purposes, we would not have the very technology like tablets and laptops that we clamor over.

The technology required to get a am to mars is similar to the new technology being created all over the world, yet at the same time, it is also very different. Because of the financial tourniquet NASA has been dealing with over the last several decades, our current technology stands far away from where it would have to be to put a man on Mars. Even compared to the moon landings of the 1960’s and 70’s, a Mars landing is difficult on a scale rarely seen before in human history. Putting a man on Mars brings challenges that we have never had to consider before, and without adequate funding, it could be many more decades before the financial resources are there to complete this technology (Mann). When I asked my peers questions about our current space program, many seemed interested, but few had much idea at all on the current situation of the program, an issue that speaks to the lack of knowledge and involvement of mainstream America. Like former Nasa chief technologist Bobby Braun says, however, “the good news is that there's nothing technologically impossible about a manned Mars mission. It's just a matter of deciding it's a priority and putting the time and money into developing the necessary tools.” An event like the landing of man on mars is an event that comes around only once or twice a century, and if we want to see the culmination of this project within our lifetimes, the time to act is now. The decision to shoot for mars isn’t something that can come to tuition overnight, it is a long-term project; a technological investment rarely paralleled by any terrestrial project.

Sources:

Atkinson, Nancy. "8 Ridiculous Things Bigger than NASA’s Budget." Universe Today. N.p., 27 May 2009.           Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

Bergin, Chris. "NASA Told to Resolve SLS Upper Stage Dilemma." NASA Told to Resolve SLS Upper Stage              Dilemma. N.p., 30 June 201. Web. 27 Sept. 2015.

Brooks, Jeff. "Putting NASA’s Budget in Perspective." The Space Review:. Spacenews, 2 July 2007. Web.    08 Dec. 2015.

Deng, Boer. "The One Thing Republicans and Democrats Agree About Is Very Expensive Space Flight."              Www.slate.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015.

Galant, Richad. "Bill Nye: U.S. Risks Losing Its Space Edge." Cnn.com. CNN, 2 July 2012. Web. 8 Dec.   2015.

Garber, Steve. "The Decision to Go to the Moon: President John F. Kennedy's May 25, 1961 Speech     before Congress." NASA History Vault. National Aeronaautics and Space Association, 29 Oct.                      2013. Web. 08 Dec. 2015.

Mann, Adam. "Why We Can't Send Humans to Mars Yet, and How We'll Fix That (Wired UK)." Wired UK.       N.p., 31 May 2013. Web. 22 Mar. 2016.

"The Space Race." History.com. A&E Television Networks, n.d. Web. 27 Sept. 2015.

3/10/2016; Unit 2 Rough Draft

One More Step for Mankind

From the depths of the deep darkness and static that poured into living rooms across the country, one immortal line broke the silence and put meaning to a millennium: “one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.” In less than a decade, the American space program was able to transform a long-shot goal into arguably the biggest scientific achievement of the twentieth century. These ten simple words, uttered by a single man, represented the collective feelings of an entire nation. At long last, years of hard work and billions of taxpayer dollars had finally become worth it. For the first time since Columbus, the tangible world as we knew it was expanding, and with it, the realm of possibilities. To many, our American manned space system seems to have regressed since the time of Apollo, considering it has been more than four decades since man has touched any celestial body besides earth, and the truth is, they are mostly right. For a wide variety of different reasons, we are not even capable of returning to the moon at the moment, let alone expanding our reach to Mars. Over the past few years, however, the space system has made a strong push once again, and our technological progression now sits on the cusp of expanding our reach farther than ever before.  

                Fifty years ago, the world was a much different place than it now is. The design and construction of the Apollo spacecraft, and accompanying Saturn rocket, had a much larger socioeconomic impact on the American public than any science experiment in history. From the launch of the Russian satellite, Sputnik, in 1957 until the Apollo moon landing twelve years later, the space race provided an avenue outside the battlefield in which earth’s two superpowers could wage war. Following President Kennedy’s famous guarantee in 1961 to “land a man on the moon… before the decade is out,” failure truly was not an option. Even with a processing system less powerful than a modern cell phone, America was able to put men on the moon, a feat many believed could not be done. Spurred by the surprise Russian launch of Sputnik, and the fear of what this launch represented, America was forced to take drastic measures in the waning years of the 1950’s. Fueled by overarching fear and scientific ambition, the 1960’s marked a new era in scientific exploration. Over a ten year period, the American government spent a whopping 25 billion dollars towards the ultimate creation of the Apollo spacecraft, the equivalent of well over 170 billion dollars in today’s money. In the immediate aftermath of Kennedy’s space promise, NASA’s budget was increased by some 500% over its previous mark; America was determined to put a man on the moon, and no cost was too great [The Space Race].

                Today, however, NASA receives less than 1/5 the budget it did during the Apollo era after being adjusted for inflation, and much of that is surprisingly spent on things such as climate research and aircraft development. In general, Americans are all too willing to fork over piles of cash to get their hands on the latest iPhone or laptop, but when it comes to technology that can actually make an impact on the word and the greater good, many Americans are far too tight-pocketed. Over the course of the 2016 fiscal year, NASA is slated to take in 18.5 billion dollars of the federal budget, which is no small amount by any standards. In the big picture, however, this amount corresponds to less than 1% of the total federal budget for 2016, making financial resources more of limiting factor to space exploration than any technological factor. When questioned in a 1997 poll, the average American estimated that 20 percent of the nations budged went toward NASA and space exploration, so where does this huge misunderstanding come from?

This is not the first time that our space program has faced economic restrictions, however. Nearly fifty years ago, America faced a similar problem: during the 1970’s NASA proposed a massive project to put men on Mars, build an international space station, and even colonize the moon, but because of long term budget gaps, that project, along with every major project since, has failed to get off the ground. Based on the rate of scientific growth of the 1960’s, there is no doubt that putting a man on Mars is not a matter of “can we,” but a matter of “are we willing to.”