Reason would dictate that there is no need for a constitutional amendment authorizing an Air Force, which is so clearly necessary to national defense.
One the one hand I have luantics arguing that the Constitution is a "living document" and on the other I have lunatics arguing that the Constitution is a museum piece.
What's next? An argument that it is unconstitutional to outfit the Postal Service with trucks because the internal combustion engine - like airplanes - did not exist in 1787?
But look at the bloated monstrosity of a government it has given us and ask yourself if you want to continue the tradition of sophistry in Constitutional reasoning.
It is not an either/or.
There is a rational middle way between Lysander Spooner and John Conyers.
A mission to Mars, a mission to the Moon, space stations, space shuttles and the like are weakly related to national defense. Look at all the Federal government funding of “science” like nutrition, pyschology, whatever strikes Congresses fancy. It’s all the same reasoning. If we want Federal funding of science like this we should amend the Constitution, defining the allowable purposes of the funding, the limits of it, and where it would be better to leave it in the hands of the states.