> That's a big lie, it's extremely rare for big projects outside of wartime to create downstream tech that is generally usable. The big ones that are often claimed (Velcro for NASA and MRIs for the supercollider) are definitely lies.

This quite mistaken based on what I've read. Historically NASA hovers at around a 10:1 ROI. SpaceX would not exist today without the huge benefit of all the material NASA has published historically.

MRI may not have come from colliders, but modern medical imaging absolutely has benefited from these projects. There's a researcher that commented in a sibling thread with specific benefits to their project.

> In the case of a bigger collider, what is X?

Here's a quick summary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb4zv80qs3Q

> Historically NASA hovers at around a 10:1 ROI.

I suggest you look at what was spent on the Space Shuttle, which turned out to be non-reusable (it was re-manufactured after each flight for up to a year.) No ROI there.

Fun facts: NASA knew from the very first flight that they were losing several tiles during launch, and no tiles were optional. Also, NASA managers were given photos of Columbia's damaged wing, which had a gaping hole in the leading edge, before re-entry, and sat on them. I wouldn't fly a Cessna 152 like that.)

https://www.space.com/19436-columbia-disaster.html

That and the ISS sucked most of the funding out of US space research and is still going on.

My constructive suggestion? Take a chain saw to the ISS on the next "mission."

I am aware of the design failures of the shuttle and their consequences. This does not invalidate what I said about the net historical ROI of NASA. Please go research a bit more.

Over $110 billion has been spent on the ISS through 2020, excluding international partners. (It makes me want to vomit when I read that. That's 5 new CERN super-colliders, where you know, real science is done.)

Unless we made a trillion dollars on that bungled program alone, still not seeing ROI:

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasa-ig-iss-cost-u-s-75-b...

Again, you're cherry picking things. Just google nasa roi please.

1) I found the reference from 1976 you're referring to, which is so misleading as to be false (note the cumulative arithmetic in Table 5. Trees don't grow to the sky.)

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/197600...

In addition, that was pre-bungled Space Shuttle and ISS programs. Even the GAO is reticent to talk about how much money was wasted in those programs in case future space programs would be immediately cancelled due to gross mismanagement.

2) If you're a scifi fanboi, just admit that you support whatever wasteful spending NASA does. But don't hide behind obfuscated numbers that you haven't read and don't understand.

Let me make sure I have this straight. Trees don’t grow to the sky but we should have built five more colliders instead of a unique zero gravity research laboratory?

I was not referring to this source. It's a well known general observation with support from multiple researchers.

Your second point goes beyond the bounds of civility here.