Cecil’s comments about the space program in the last paragraph of his post about a candle in space were uncalled for. He insulted all the scientists at NASA and mentioned a budget of 6 jillion dollars. This kind of comment is absurd, especially because we owe all our technological developments to NASA. During the (granted) overfunded years of the Apollo program, they discovered the fundamental technologies for computers, VCRs, microwaves, and many other things including thermal socks. Cecil thinks that by being sarcastic he can be funny, but all he is doing is making himself look dumb.
Here’s a link to the column: If you lit a match in zero gravity, would it smother in its own smoke?
I have to agree that the crack about the NASA budget was a little out of line, since that budget is pretty low (nowadays), as federal programs go. I also agree that many items we depend on came from the space program.
However, you’re overstating a bit. Cecil’s humor often comes from comedic hyperbole, and this wasn’t as grievous as you portray it. And you can’t say that “we owe all our technological developments to NASA.” You say that Cecil is trying to be funny when he exagerrates, but you stretch things yourself and don’t even get a smile.
“If you prick me, do I not…leak?” --Lt. Commander Data
Good grief, I gotta proofread these things. The word is ‘exaggerate.’
“If you prick me, do I not…leak?” --Lt. Commander Data
That’s going to come as quite a surprise to the folks who build their computers during the fifties and sixties - before NASA even existed.
Jill J (NOT Jill G!) misses the point to the comment Cecil made. Cecil isn’t unhappy with NASA or its budget. Cecil is poking fun at NASA spending research money on finding out whether or not a flame burns in zero-G and under what conditions, etc. He is using hyperbole, a well-known method of a) being funny and b) getting across a criticism without being directly critical. I suspect he also enjoys the odd person who leaps passionately to the defense of the organization tweaked, especially when they use their own unintended hyperbole. 
NASA has a strong institutional memory about fires in spacecraft as a result of the fatal Apollo 1 fire.
They were testing flame propagation in orbit so they could design a low flammability Space Station.
Discovering that it could be a death trap after it’s in orbit would not be a career enhancer. Finding out the hard way would be very bad.
Regards