In article ,
BobGoFish wrote:

*NASA or NAACP? *

There is controversy as to whether or not space exploration is worthy of
federal (tax payer) funding.

That is true, but there is considerably more controversy over whether
*manned* space exploration is worthy of taxpayer funding, and more
controversy still over whether taxpayers ought to continue to fund NASA.
These are three distinct questions, and ought not to be conflated.

[ List of cool things NASA has supposedly done snipped ]

FIrst, the attribution of some of the technologies in this list (like
email) to NASA is highly questionable. But more importantly, it is not
at all clear that these technological advances would not have happened
without NASA. And in recent years one could seriously ask what advances
we might have had if, for example, the space shuttle and space station
programs had not been sucking tens of billions of dollars into the
cosmic void with absolutely nothing to show for it. (Note that nearly
all of the technologies on the list of Cool Things NASA Has Done are
over twenty years old.)

NASA is, by and large, not about space exploration, it's about funneling
money to key Congressional districts and (recently) saving face in the
international community. The vast majority of NASA's budget goes to
shuttle and ISS, neither of which has ever "explored" anything except
the limits of the American public's tolerance for boondoggles. (It has
yet to find them.)

I support space exploration. I think the American public really gets
its money's worth from NASA's unmanned missions. And when Virgin
Spaceways starts selling tickets I'll be there with my checkbook. But
NASA's manned program (which is the vast majority of NASA) is nothing
but a great money-consuming black hole. It ought to be scrapped.

rg