Both NASA and the US Military:
- Are government funded
- Employ a lot of people, some are even shared (many astronauts came from the air force)
- Fund and develop a lot of technology that eventually is applied to consumer products
- Have a primary purpose that only indirectly benefits the average citizen (exploring space, fighting in other countries)
So here is my question: why is the funding argument for NASA so backwards? Conservatives who support the military should also be supporting NASA for the same reasons. Liberals should be against funding NASA, instead favoring social welfare, health care, infrastructure, and other programs that have a more direct impact on the population. I mean, if you had no exposure to current events or the news, then this would be the reasonable conclusion.
In my opinion, it pretty much just comes down to the religious, anti-science influence on the conservative stance. If true, it raises some interesting questions about how easily you can manipulate support for an institution purely by aligning it with or against the scientific community. For example, if scientists start coming out and supporting the military, do we see a reversal of support there as well? What if the military publicly advocates stem cell research? What if you have an international set of trade regulations that allows aggressive prosecution against researchers and inventors, do the anti-regulation conservatives support it?