And with that money they are getting two different spacecraft that can fly missions. So I think it was a great way for NASA to contract out the development of a crew capsule they could use on their missions.

That one of the companies that participated has done so in such a way that they can make a commercially feasible 'tourist' vehicle out of it? That blows my mind.

[1] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_...

[2] https://www.cbo.gov/topics/budget

If we establish a permanent Mars colony, that would really increase security for all of mankind.

Building more nuclear weapons is NOT increasing security.

  > every time you convince someone that manned space doesn't make sense you convince them there's no reason to go into space at all

Yes, my tax dollars going towards research (even indirectly) is better than the way most of my money is spent

Penicillin, for one, was discovered over a decade prior to WWII. A method of mass production was developed in 1940, but have no idea how much that had to do with the war.

The sixties-era DARPA method: throw a bunch of defense money at a bunch of really smart people without getting too specific about how much of the research should proceed.

But that makes no sense.

yes

On edit: meant for the parent comment, but its parent instead

No. That's a common misconception. ICs were a commercial development, and microprocessors came from the calculator industry.

Pre-IC electronics miniaturization was pushed hard by the USAF; NASA just used it. The USAF had a flyable transistorized computer in 1954, before NASA existed. The Minuteman I missile (1962) carried a transistorized guidance computer.

On the other hand, I doubt we spend much money upgrading our ICBMs. The technology is mature, and that's an area where "good enough" is, well, good enough.

(There at least used to be a Minuteman silo with the door painted like a pizza box with that slogan)