It’s pretty unfortunate that with all NASA has done to expand and improve technology, society, humanity, science, the continued benefits in our day to day lives, that funding it can be so controversial. It’s such a tiny fraction of the budget already and continues to do so much - how does it become a target?

Let’s also look at space stations for similar negativism. Why are so many stories talking about destruction of ISS, and end of humans in space? NASA is planning on retiring the ISS and yes it’s a huge effort to do so safely. But how is it not inspiring, to be planning a space station orbiting the moon instead? How is it not inspiring that NASA is working with private companies such that we might have multiple space stations? This transition really could be a new era of humans living and working in space, if we let it

[–] CheeseNoodle@lemmy.world 11 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Not even American but the underfunding of NASA is criminal, firstly because iirc it has something like a 5:1 return on its funding when you account for the economic benefits of all the research it does that filters into the private sector.

Secondly because it has great PR that really gets people engaged with space science. Before James Webb the ESA launched two telescopes of similar important, one radio one that produced the best map of the CMB we have to date and another one where I can't even remember what it does just that it was also groundbreaking in its field/spectrum. Which is the point, we all should have been excited about those telescopes when they launched but I can't even remember their names or what one of them even did, I can remember James Webb though because NASA did the PR work and that's incredibly telling.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

“Cosmic Vision” would have been a great opportunity to sell the overall plan better, big enough to afford marketing, expensive enough overall to need marketing. Let’s all get excited and share a

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Vision