I agree that NASA's portion of the budget is small, and there are much larger programs that deserve more criticism. But I don't think the right argument to make is: "It's only a little bit of money, so we don't have to worry if it is being used responsibly." Ten billion dollars a year is small compared to larger programs. But it is large compared to the National Malaria Eradication Program, which produced great benefits. If NASA is free, and we don't have to give anything up to pay for space research, then we should have a hundred NASAs. What are we actually giving up in order to have NASA, does anyone know? To determine if NASA is a good way to invest resources, we should examine the costs and the benefits of having NASA. The Internet is not one of those benefits.