The Value of NASA

Author Jack McDevitt said (via scienceblogs)

"The problem with space travel is that you don't really get much benefit from it. Not the sort that makes, say, for better transportation or better toothpaste. NASA is always trying to sell it that way, but the money would be better spent developing the toothpaste directly than looking for it to come out of the space program.

The problem is that scientists are notoriously poor public relations people. The space program gives us, basically, blue-sky science. It teaches us about the place where we live. But the truth is most people don't care. More than half of the U.S. population, before the recent stir over "degrading" Pluto, didn't know where in the system it could be found. Whatever the reason, we've been notoriously unsuccessful in stirring the interest of kids in the sciences. The condition is exacerbated by the fact that roughly 1/3 of the U.S. population sees science as an enemy, as a force trying to disrupt their faith."

The key difference is that NASA is financed by the government while toothpaste research is funded by private companies. A private firm would never find it profitable to spend billions on space research unless it could somehow turn this research into something consumers would pay billions for.

If NASA's job is to "teach us about the place where we live" then how can we ever determine if it fails since this is such a fuzzy mission statement. It's much better if the job of a government agency is to build a bridge or reduce cancer deaths because this way taxpayers have some means of judging success and failure.