But your attack is limp. You're complaining about a project on the basis of cost when it is basically a financial rounding error. The US government is 34 trilli

But your attack is limp. You're complaining about a project on the basis of cost when it is basically a financial rounding error. The US government is 34 trillion in debt [0], led mainly by the largest welfare state (by absolute size, not by generosity) in the history of the globe. The annual interest on that debt alone is about the size of the total 50 year history of spend on NASA [1]. If, in that context, if you're going to attack a productive project as a waste of money: 1) You aren't seriously looking at the political situation. There are actual budget problems without going to find imaginary ones. 2) You're representing a perspective that clearly has no political power, and you're representing it by attacking one of the easiest programs to justify. If you've got no political power, it makes more sense to attack weak opposing positions. Finding wasteful US government spending is like shooting fish in a barrel; the forever wars alone are enough to harp on for decades. But you're going to try and launch an attack on the space program, which did at least advance the state of humanity? You're setting yourself up to look silly. [0] It is already closer to 35 trillion, I wish my salary grew that quickly. [1] _trampeltier's link