For every $100 in taxes the US government spends, NASA receives less than $0.50. Subjectively this seems like a reasonable amount, but when you compare it to the US military budget, it seems very unfair. Of the same 100 tax dollars, the US military receives 54. This amounts to 716 billion dollars per year. This may raise the question of whether some or all of the budget could be spent on improving our knowledge rather than our artillery. It can also be suggested that the importance of NASA's work is often overlooked. Therefore, in this essay I will explore the ups and downs of this issue and the way forward for the better of the United States and its spending habits. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay There are many things NASA could do with 36 times its usual budget. First, they could make a better, “super” Hubble telescope. The successor to the Hubble telescope, the James Webb Space Telescope, is already on its way and will be launched in March 2021. It will also be extremely expensive for NASA, costing more than half of its annual budget of $10 billion. What if we could do even better? If NASA had $700 billion to spend every year, we could create a telescope 100 times more powerful than the Hubble telescope. This new telescope could be up to 10 times larger than Hubble and have over 10 times the resolution. We could get images in less than 2 hours rather than the weeks it took Hubble to get results. It would be even better than the 6.5-meter James Webb Space Telescope, and we could see further, with a much clearer image than we could imagine with NASA's current budget. We might even realize what has been a common dream in science fiction since the 1950s; go to the red planet. With a budget of 700 billion dollars we could be able to colonize the Moon and Mars. With consistent funding of $50 billion to $150 billion over the course of 10 years, we could have a fully functioning colony with a full human crew, each of whom would stay for up to a year and a half. Research we may conduct next on water on Mars could suggest potential compatibility for more humans to live on Mars. We could create colonies on the Moon and use it as a base for further potentially manned missions to other terrestrial bodies in our solar system such as Enceladus, one of Saturn's moons. NASA could also partner with promising private space companies like Elon Musk's SpaceX and join them on their missions to Mars. NASA could help them with the completion of the Big Falcon Rocket (BFR), a fully reusable rocket that they previously said they wouldn't pay for. Participating in the creation of the first sustainable rocket would be a giant step for NASA, which it would have to take if it had the budget available. We might even start thinking about steps that help not just space travel but the world. We could create a nuclear fusion reactor that creates net energy. We can split the nucleus from elements like plutonium to get energy, but what about fusing two atoms together and releasing a much larger amount of energy? We know it's possible because of what we see happening on the Sun, but what about creating it here on Earth? Although such high pressures are almost impossible to produce, with the right amount of money, this achievement would not seem entirely out of reach. As Ethan Siegel says writing for Forbes magazine, "It's the Holy Graildefinitive of energy, and the biggest obstacle to its success is not physics, but lack of investment." A separate but equally important factor would be the US military itself. Does it really matter whether the US has artillery largest? The United States spends roughly the amount of the seven largest military expenditures combined, making China's annual spending of $131 billion insignificant US spends $2.77 alone. Furthermore, US military spending on science and technology has been predicted to increase only marginally over the next decade, compared to defense agencies, which reportedly receive 50% of the science budget. and technological. The United States contributes 35% of all military spending in the world. The world has 8,400 attack helicopters. Of this number, the United States has 6,400. China, the second biggest spender, has 500 Type-99 tanks, outclassed by US M1 Abrams. The United States has 8,700 of these M1 Abrams tanks. The United States has ten aircraft carriers, compared to the rest of the world which together has only ten, much smaller ones. The United States has 3,500 Tomahawk missiles in its arsenal. Each of these missiles can cost up to $1.5 million, for a total of $5.25 billion, with only 59 of these missiles having specific combat use. What's the point of having so many missiles if you only used 1% of them? It can also be said that the United States is sometimes reckless when it comes to spending money. In the past, billions have been wasted on ideas that, with a little thought before handing out the money, could have been saved. In 2017, the United States rushed to provide new camouflage uniforms to soldiers in Afghanistan. However, the fighting took place in the desert. The United States spent $20 million on camouflage uniforms, for the lush colors of forest green, not the sandy yellow of the Afghan desert. The US also spent NASA's entire budget on air conditioning in Iraq, which proved to be a failure. As Steven Anderson, a former Pentagon employee, estimates, there have been more than 1,000 deaths as a result of these targeted fuel convoys. Freestanding tents in the middle of the desert trying to beat the 51°C heat require a lot of fuel. As Anderson says, by making these facilities more efficient the United States could not only save dollars but also lives. There are other examples of the United States not having a clear idea with the Lockheed Martin F-35 A Lightning II. This was an idea to create an aircraft that the Air Force, Navy and Marines could use to their advantage. It had to be able to land anywhere, take off anywhere, and carry an assortment of weapons. However, it turned out to be a trillion-dollar mistake. It became a “black hole” of errors, delays and technical problems and took $1.5 trillion with it. It is plagued with problems and costs that exceed double the annual budget of the United States because they didn't think enough about their plans. But does NASA deserve the same budget as the world's largest military force? If the United States focused less on the military budget, there is a possibility that it would lose its superpower status, and next in line for spending would be China. This is worrying as China already plans to match US spending by 2050. With the potential danger of full-scale war looming, letting the US lower its military guard would not be a good idea. China has already patented a hypersonic missile, which would bealmost impossible for the United States to intercept. Without security for the rest of the world from such a dominant military body, there could be dangerous repercussions such as a potential world war. This suggests that while the focus on military spending may be slightly misplaced, the cause remains incredibly important to the maintenance of global peace, something that space travel and exploration cannot achieve. The United States can also be said to hold great power in protecting against the threat of nuclear attack. Even with the threat of hypersonic missiles currently under development in China, the United States has been instrumental in preventing weapons of mass destruction; weapons of mass destruction. In 2003, President Bush created the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), as an initiative to help control weapons of mass destruction. The creation of this program, according to the US State Department, has stopped exports to the Iranian missile program and related equipment for Tehran's (alleged) missile program. The defense system is fundamental to maintaining world peace, and the The United States is on the front lines of protecting the world from the threat of nuclear weapons. The list of countries with the “badge of possessing nuclear weapons” is constantly growing. Just under 2,000 nuclear tests have been recorded, with a growing number of countries now ready to fire a "big red button". Although President Trump has proudly boasted that his “button” is “much bigger and more powerful” than North Korea's, shifting funding to NASA could take away the influence held by the U.S. military. And the soldiers? The Department of Defense says it is a hub for more than 1.3 million jobs for active duty personnel, 740,000 civilians and 826,000 National Guard employees, making it the largest employer in the United States. But it's not always a question of direct employment. The mere existence of military bases is often a boost for the local economy, since the bases guarantee the arrival of many specialists, who will take care of the expenses and construction. We also see improvements in retail and hospitality simply because of the existence of these foundations. Prior to the closure of the Maryland Plan, their military presence was estimated to have created an additional $16 billion in the state of Maryland. With a serious budget cut, nearly 2 million people would be out of work, and the United States wouldn't have that extra paycheck just to keep people in those jobs. Clearly spending so much on the military has been beneficial to the United States, and as a result, it can clearly be said that the amount of money given to the military is entirely necessary, and while NASA funding would in itself create jobs job, it is questionable whether this is comparable to the number of jobs created by the US military. Please note: this is just an example. Get a custom paper from our expert writers now. Get a Custom Essay In conclusion, US spending has its fair share of the good, the bad, and the ugly, and moving that budget to NASA has its fair share. While it can be said that NASA deserves a much larger budget, it should not be suggested that this money comes from the pockets of the military. From what has been analyzed, it is clear that the military provides economic stability in various ways, and therefore neglecting it would be reckless. However, it can also be said that NASA's research relies heavily on public interest, which has declined since the Cold War, as has the interest of many: 2019]