On aviation infrastructure, riobo, you've made a category error with regard to the U.S. budget. The problem isn't imbalance of priorities, rather it's a kind of dilution or diversion. Every Congressional Committee and Subcommittee empowers legislators (by virtue of their being rostered on them) to influence who spends the funds and how their performance is monitored, the result being akin to the "200 Spielbergs" situation observed when Chicago airport cops dragged a passenger off a flight a few years ago. Substitute less than top-drawer competence for cellphone vid cameras.
The ISRO budget hasn't been claimed here as wasted or mismanaged (I didn't claim that and don't see that parkfell did, either). But it's a matter of priority. With runways you admit are not up to some standard we all could agree does apply, and with the geographic and climatological predicates unchanging, you're still contending that at least some of the rockets and satellite funding should not be reallocated? - that this should not even be considered? (Not to dwell on anti-satellite tests, but....)
And solution proposed by rohitkapoor181, to allow and encourage privitization, isn't that significantly inconsistent with what your post identified as a "poor" legal and regulatory framework?
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 9th Aug 2020 at 01:11.
Reason: wrong attribution previously of privitization as solving things