Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe it is dependent on funding and you are doing space exploration harm by abstracting it down to percentages of budgets vaguely spent, as if it's a progress bar in a Zynga game that only needs to be filled. There are many things you can do to help with space exploration. Get others excited about physics/astronomy/engineering, conduct your own rocket research and involve your family/neighbors, run/participate i…
> I believe it is dependent on funding and you are doing space exploration harm by abstracting it down to percentages of budgets vaguely spent, as if it's a progress bar in a Zynga game that only needs to be filled. Are you trying to sound like a smug prick? > There are many things you can do to help with space exploration. Get others excited about physics/astronomy/engineering, conduct your own rocket research .. Uh…
Edit: to respond to the middle part, I think that if you are more concerned about the space program than the other things that compete with it for money, then you would want to spend your time similarly, especially because many people are not as interested in space as you (and I) think they should be.
I do not think being busy is a good excuse; when I said you couldn't see the possibilities of positive action I meant to warm you to the possibility of increasing future support for funding by incubating enthusiasm for space exploration in others. You could certainly do this. I was also serious to suggest that you might actually contribute in some way to our exploration of space, which would mean more exploration for the same money. Whether funding increases, stays even or decreases that is a good thing.
I do stand by the Zynga analogy in that your perception of funding appeared to be too deterministic, not that you are somehow a Farmville addict or even play one Zynga game. I maintain it's bad for NASA if its advocates view the relationship between funding and space exploration too abstractly.