1) You’re assuming the R&D conducted by NASA could not and would not have been conducted by someone else, more cheaply (within the constraints of profitability, after all, unlike govt agencies). And further, that without these technologies they came up with that we now use, we either would not ever have had it if not for tossing billions at some government agency, or we would not have had some technology that is similar or that achieves similar ends. I’m not convinced.

2) Commercial demand spurs the success of some of the technologies invented, but more like discovered, by government-funded R&D scientists. For every one thing the market has incorporated and built upon, there are probably 10 things that get tossed in the dustbin of government waste (a large bin) and we never hear of again. Bad record.

3) IF NASA R&D were so wildly profitable, investors and companies would be tossing billions upon billions at similar endeavors in order to made these Madoff-like returns (22:1, 7:1) that some people suggest. This study suggests the return is actually 1:10.

All that’s left is space-obsessed dorks like Heinlein hiding their giddiness at the idea of human colonies hurtling through space to stay one step ahead of the frontier using the alleged benefits of NASA R&D as a cover for their advocating a famously profligate use of public funds.

End NASA. And farm subsidies and national parks maintenance.