Down with NASA

I hope the subject your attention.

My question really is about national budget priorities. Should something that I
might call ego science and a jobs program for rocket scientists, use monies
that might be better spent on projects that may lead to a better general good?
I admit I'm phrasing this badly, I'll try again. If one uses 'Zero Based
Budgeting' thought processes, and among projects competing for funding is say
research on the immune system so that transpants aren't rejected as often, or
landing a Rover on Mars, why ever are we looking at rockets rising into the
sky?

I've no problem with some money being spent on blue sky (an unfortunate phrase)
projects, but I think most big science projects should have some demonstratable
application for the general good.

I'm using 'Zero Based Budgeting' to mean one does NOT consider prior
investments, all that matters is what's controllable now -- present and future
funding. It means it doesn't matter if for example you've half built a house,
then find an investment that'll return more net rewards than if the house
competed instead of abandoned. One very common zero based budgeting process
many of us have used is divorce. We have a huge investment in a relationship,
but decide, in spite of that emotional and financial investment, future
emotional 'investments' are likely to be more rewarding if placed elsewhere.

Your turn.

AJW