The paper argues that ancient astronomers faced pressure to demonstrate practical value, a pressure mirrored in modern times by NASA's need to justify its funding through tangible results. NASA's spinoff reports, detailing practical applications of its research, are presented as an attempt to shape public opinion and secure funding. The comparison between ancient Greek astronomers and NASA offers a novel perspective on the historical pressures faced by scientific endeavors. While tempting to assert that the similarities transcend time and place, the evidence is insufficient to make such a claim. The paper is divided into three sections: an analysis of NASA's funding and public opinion; an examination of ancient Hellenic texts on natural philosophy, focusing on astronomy; and a synthesis with policy recommendations. The paper clarifies that it doesn't advocate against NASA's production of practical results, recognizing their significant positive impact. Instead, it analyzes the underlying pressure to demonstrate such results, regardless of the intrinsic value of the scientific work.

The paper reviews studies on the relationship between public opinion and NASA funding, finding inconclusive or contradictory results. Some suggest weak public support for space programs except for landmark events like the Apollo 11 moon landing. Others indicate fluctuating public support influenced by factors like the Space Shuttle program and potential business opportunities. The paper also examines libertarian critiques of NASA funding, arguing against state involvement in space exploration due to concerns about inefficiency and misuse of taxpayer money. These critiques are contrasted with arguments for the essential role of state funding in enabling large-scale space projects. The literature review incorporates analysis of ancient Greek texts on natural philosophy, particularly focusing on the perceptions and portrayals of astronomers like Thales of Miletus.

The paper employs a comparative historical analysis, drawing on both primary and secondary sources. For ancient astronomers, the analysis centers on interpreting ancient texts such as Aristotle's *Politics*, Plato's *Theaetetus*, and Aristophanes' *Clouds*, focusing on depictions of Thales of Miletus and the broader societal perception of astronomers. The analysis of NASA involves examining its funding history, spinoff reports, public opinion polls, and commentary from libertarian think tanks. The methodology combines empirical data on NASA funding and public opinion with interpretative analysis of ancient texts to identify common themes and pressures faced by scientists across different historical periods. The paper interprets the narratives around Thales, contrasting accounts that depict him as impractical with interpretations suggesting the use of wells for astronomical observation. The analysis of Aristophanes' *Clouds* examines the interplay between astronomy, sophistry, and the potential societal consequences of scientific advancements. The paper also discusses the case of Archimedes, highlighting the dangers of neglecting political realities while engrossed in scientific pursuits. Finally, the methodology includes a case study of Wernher von Braun, illustrating how adaptability to the changing political landscape can be crucial for scientific success. The interpretation of these historical figures and events is woven together to illustrate the persistent tensions between the pursuit of pure scientific knowledge and the demand for tangible, practical results.

The paper's key findings highlight the parallels between the pressures faced by ancient astronomers and NASA. Ancient astronomers were often mocked for their perceived lack of practical wisdom, a situation reflected in the persistent need for NASA to justify its funding through demonstrable benefits. The analysis of NASA's spinoff reports reveals a concerted effort to present practical applications of its research to the public and policymakers, a strategy designed to counter critiques and maintain funding. The study of public opinion regarding space exploration shows mixed and often contradictory results, with support fluctuating across time and influenced by factors beyond simple approval of space projects. Libertarian critiques of NASA raise concerns about the role of the state in space exploration and its use of taxpayer money. The paper also identifies the long-standing perception of astronomy as impractical and potentially dangerous, stemming from its perceived threat to traditional beliefs and values. The paper finds that the popular image of astronomers falling into wells while stargazing, as seen in Plato's *Theaetetus* and Aesop's fables, might have a less derogatory interpretation if understood in the context of using wells as observational tools. The analysis of Aristophanes' *Clouds* reveals a complex relationship between astronomy, sophistry, and the potential for moral decay stemming from scientific progress. The case study of Wernher von Braun contrasts the fates of Archimedes and von Braun, highlighting the importance of political awareness in navigating the complexities of scientific careers.

The findings suggest that the pressure to demonstrate practical value is a persistent challenge for scientific endeavors, transcending historical periods and geographical locations. NASA's strategy of highlighting spinoff technologies reflects a long-standing need to demonstrate the relevance of scientific work beyond its intrinsic value. The fluctuating nature of public support for space exploration underscores the importance of effective communication and strategic planning in securing funding. The paper discusses the implications of the findings for science policy, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that values both fundamental research and tangible applications. It notes the inherent tension between the pure pursuit of scientific knowledge and the demand for demonstrable societal benefits, a tension that remains relevant for science policy today. The paper argues that increasing economic output and serving humanity aren't mutually exclusive goals, and that a pragmatic framework is necessary for balancing these competing demands.

The paper concludes that there are notable parallels between the societal pressures faced by ancient astronomers and contemporary space agencies like NASA. The need to demonstrate practical value and the challenges of securing funding are persistent issues, requiring strategic communication and adaptation to changing political and economic realities. Future research could explore the evolution of public perception of science across different cultures and historical contexts, as well as examine alternative funding models for large-scale scientific endeavors. Effective communication of the wider benefits of space exploration, beyond immediate practical applications, is also crucial for securing ongoing public and political support.

The paper acknowledges that the comparison between ancient astronomers and NASA is necessarily limited by the differences in historical context and the nature of the available evidence. The analysis of public opinion regarding NASA funding is also limited by the diverse and sometimes contradictory nature of existing research. The paper focuses primarily on the US context for NASA, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other nations' space programs. Furthermore, the paper relies on interpretation of ancient texts, which can be subject to multiple perspectives and ambiguities.