Building on my post below, I believe it's understandable why NASA is what seems to be chronically underfunded. Now my person preference would be for triple the money to be spent than is, and 90% of that to go to science, not dragging a pampered pile of protoplasm around a hostile environment. But that's me.

NASA's budget is set by politicians at the end of a process which looks at everything. And they respond to public pressure, and interests.

My friends, which include a large smattering of well-educated folks, never talk about space, never think about space and have no reason to. As far as they are concerned ISS could fall down and they would be no better or worse off. The interplanetary probes are fascinating for a brief period, then fade from consciousness. The Mars Rovers haven't discovered anything which interests them. In short, there is precious little fallout and no sex in what has been happening since Apollo.

Sure, ISS has taught us to keep 3 people busy maintaining it, that there is no return on this investment beyond keeping a series of people in space for 6 months at a time. Mir did all that and more.

If NASA and the people who support her want to keep appealing to some mythical fantasy about "Man's Destiny" to support funding, fine. You'll get what we have. Try to shame them, you'll find yourselves in a bread line. If NASA can produce for the average guy, either in pride or products, then we could have a helluva program.

I just don't see any enthusiasm for supporting various arcane Ph. D. dissertations to the tune of billions and billions of dollars. I support it, but I think my friends want something more for their money. There's precious little product.