[vonzepp]

Another note worth considering is that state and companies have different roles. Take NASA vs SpaceX. SpaceX launches cheaper rockets. But NASA for example does alot of its work in Alabama, which is supporting a poor regions econonmy and its communities. It might be more optimal to do this in Silicon Valley, or even China but as a government organisation this is part of it's remit. Like wise space science for the purpose of knowledge. SpaceX only remit is cheap rockets. Comparing the two on launch costs which I see alot, misses alot of the purpose of the spending.

[AdrianB1]

"Jobs in Alabama" does not fly anyone to the moon, good engineering does. SpaceX, if we like it or not, does good engineering by making the cost of rockets low, anybody can spend money but not everybody will deliver results and even rarer, people will deliver great results. There is no "social care" in NASA as an acronym.

[rahimnathwani]

  which I see alot, misses alot of the purpose of the spending

NASA's remit isn't to be a jobs program or to provide a social safety net.

[vonzepp]

NASA is a government agency and as a government agency it is used as a vehicle to implement the general purpose of the government.

To put a different example of the point. If the cheapest way to launch items into space was for NASA to buy rockets off Russia, would that be what it would do? No, because government policy includes independent launch capacity.

NASA isn't a private company, it is a tool of government and as such it can have have a wider role in society then a compariable private company will have.