“1. Clearly a lot of these items would have come along without NASA and NASA was not the only force behind their invention.
2. The amount of generally useful technology generated per billion dollars invested in NASA does not seem so impressive.”
Spinoffs are not the justification, they are just that.. spinoffs. They are a major bonus to the endeavor itself.
Thye are not the primary reason we send people into space.
It is unarguble however, the technologies came along SOONER then they would have before. They came first in America rather then some other nation.
Many would NOT have been sought after for their own sake.
And certainly some would not have been discovered by now either.
Now, if your life had depended on that tech, and many peoples lives have, you would be quite happy those spinoffs came along sooner then they would have.
Then nations that lead on the frontiers.... dictate the course of human history.
Is that worth a tiny percentage of federal discretionary spending or not?
Because it is tiny.
They are used as a justification by NASA, by other people on this thread, and in your own post.
It is unarguble however, the technologies came along SOONER then they would have before. They came first in America rather then some other nation. ...
Now, if your life had depended on that tech, and many peoples lives have, you would be quite happy those spinoffs came along sooner then they would have.
You have to be specific. You are setting up a straw man of life-saving technologies created by NASA but you haven't named any.
BTW I am in favor of space exploration and basic research in general. I just think the whole spinoff thing is an obvious PR exaggeration.