> Space means spending a whole lot of money for little political gain.
But the whole point is that this isn't true. It's not a whole lot of money and the political gain could be significant. The same politicians vote to spend way more money on unpopular wars than they do on potentially popular space voyages. For some reason, NASA is perceived as a money sink that doesn't get votes. But I bet, if put to the test, all that would be found to be hogwash.
Whoever takes the USA to Mars will be a popular person.
>Whoever takes the USA to Mars will be a popular person.
The president who takes the USA to Mars will be a popular person. The congressman who gives up a pet project in his constituency to pay for it will not.
I'd rather have Mars than Iraq any day, but Iraq is a far easier sell to Congress, especially when there's no requirement to pay for it.
I'd argue however that at the present moment, some people in the private sector have just as big of a chance, if not greater to be credited with taking the US(world) to Mars.
Elon Musk's SpaceX is in my opinion just as close as NASA is in sending humanity to Mars if not slightly closer.
Oh, for sure. We were arguing within the context of the popularity of public funding for NASA, but if Musk succeeds in his goals he'll be a hero to many (myself included)
But the whole point is that this isn't true. It's not a whole lot of money and the political gain could be significant. The same politicians vote to spend way more money on unpopular wars than they do on potentially popular space voyages. For some reason, NASA is perceived as a money sink that doesn't get votes. But I bet, if put to the test, all that would be found to be hogwash.
Whoever takes the USA to Mars will be a popular person.