If the benefits and carryover paid for it, fine. But I doubt it, not now anyway. If it wasn't borrowed money, I'd say throw .5% at at it. But no way when it's borrowed, unless it can be proven beyond doubt that the outcome is net positive.
I really wish we could retire the word "borrowed" to describe the nature of sovereign debt. It makes it sound like we're borrowing dollars from the Chinese to pay NASA. That's not how it works. (United States currency is one of the few things that isn't made in China these days.)
That's why I said not now anyway. In the past, sure, it drove innovation to a great degree. But at this point we've wrung out the biggest gains. Almost anything NASA develops nowadays has little benefit to the public at large. It's entertainment mostly.
caseydurfee|11 years ago
fargolime|11 years ago
IndianAstronaut|11 years ago
NASA's contributions are estimated to have a 2-3 to 1 fold revenue generation for NASA spending.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/no_20100827_1798.php
fargolime|11 years ago