During the 1960s, the “Race to Space” rivalry, which was a crucial event during the era of the Cold War, was motivation for the nations involved in space exploration.  For the United States, the race was geared primarily to greedily gain the usefulness of science and technology. It sent the nation to the moon in 1969 for the first time.  The hierarchy of the world has been growing on the inept idea that science and technology will fix all of our problems. Yet, it has been over 30 years since the last time the United States stepped foot on the moon in 1972.
On February 1, 2010 President Barack Obama declared NASA’s reconstruction on space exploration technology since the organization has been comfortable with its operations from when it began 50-60 years ago.  Unfortunately, we are still in a recession.  The United States is trillions of dollars in debt to China and other nations; yet, our nation seems to be managing its money with a sense of misguided priorities.  The nation’s economy, health care, poor and unemployment are all serious issues that still need to be tended to before we focus on exploring distant frontiers.
Not to mention that funds will be granted to blast more astronauts into space at the risks of their lives in order to churn some moon dirt into fuel.
The United States is unstable financially and Obama has granted $18 billion toward NASA’s budget in the next five years in order to generate technology.  The plan is to not only land on the moon again, but to assemble a rocket that can run on lunar minerals for fuel.  This would advance exploration in deep space.  There have been pros and cons as to how NASA can penetrate the unknown in order to come up with a new rocket in the said time.
Even congressmen are finding it uneasy to cope with Obama’s proposal, primarily those of the states of Texas, Florida and Alabama, home of NASA’s launch hubs throughout its existence as a national organization.
With our nation in the present critical state, it would be nothing less than wise to conserve what financial balance we do have in order to preserve the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness that are stated within the Declaration of Independence. But this would not be America unless irrationality occasionally presented itself in a timely fashion, or is this just part of the Obama’s ‘‘change’’ movement that has been long in the waiting?  Perhaps part of the ‘‘change’’ is to leave Earth and its problems behind, thus revealing anti-stewardship.
Additionally, assistance for future operations to space would involve that of altered company assistance in producing Obama’s requests for NASA.  Companies like the United Launch Alliance, which have only had experience in sending satellites into space, would have to adjust their technology to accommodate astronauts’ needs in space.   This alternative technological movement could pose potential risks upon the new programs’ first attempts back into space in the five years to come.
Be it as it may, if NASA can pump out the technology needed for such a proposal, the results could be beneficial towards the advancement of further understanding our universe. As a nation, however, we should choose to balance our priorities between needs and wants.