2024, a Mission to Mars. Is that even possible at all?

[Akar]

It's sad we don't invest more in NASA and other space endeavors. Not only because it's badass, but because it actually has an incredibly high ROI.

A November 1971 study of NASA released by MRIGlobal (formerly Midwest Research Institute) of Kansas City, Missouri concluded that "the $25 billion in 1958 dollars spent on civilian space R & D during the 1958–1969 period has returned $52 billion through 1971 – and will continue to produce payoffs through 1987, at which time the total pay-off will have been $181 billion. The discounted rate of return for this investment will have been 33 percent."

Other statistics on NASA's economic impact may be found in the 1976 Chase Econometrics Associates, Inc. reports and backed by the 1989 Chapman Research report, which examined 259 non-space applications of NASA technology during an eight-year period (1976–1984) and found more than:

• $21.6 billion in sales and benefits
• 352,000 (mostly skilled) jobs created or saved
• $355 million in federal corporate income taxes

According to a 1992 Nature commentary, these 259 applications represent ". . .only 1% of an estimated 25,000 to 30,000 Space program spin-offs."

[Sir Adrian]

The problem is that funding NASA is more often than not a political ping pong ball. When the democrats want to fund NASA, the republicans oppose, when the republicans want to fund it the democrats oppose. I'm amazed it's getting things done in the current political climate.

[Cookiegod]

It's sad we don't invest more in NASA and other space endeavors. Not only because it's badass, but because it actually has an incredibly high ROI.

Hence why you don't find that many people except nerds lobbying for it.

Fortunately there's a compromise. Give NASA funding but tell them to spend that money on outsourcing tasks which they could better do themselves.