Sorry. I wasn't suggesting I, or anyone else here, nor any individual or company should make that decision.

The point was, how could anyone make that decision? This year, or this decade for that matter. The value of those photos will only be realised over the very long haul. Certainly not in time to make next years, or the next 5 years of funding decisions.

And the bigger point is that whether those charged with allocating NASA its budget for the next 5 years, or the 5 after that are "satisfied with NASA", will depend as much on the outcome of the next US election. Will the new incumbent of the Whitehouse be satisfied with NASA's response to Bush's Mars adventure? Will the makeup of the House, or the Senate or the appropriate committees be pro or anti manned space missions? What other measures will be tacked on to the NASA budget bill? How effective will the lobbyists be? Will some Senator choose to vote against the bill because some town in his state is facing hard times, because the factory that provided most of the town's employment was shut, with the closure blamed upon it not getting the NASA contract that it felt is deserved?

Once you get away from the "make a product and sell it at a profit or die", typical retail and wholesale business model, and introduce all the complexities of pure research, expanding the world's knowledge, and government funding, you cannot apply the usual business criteria. Government funding is as often allocated on the basis of its wider social and political impact, as it is on the basis of who provides the most competitive tender.

As such, that makes NASA a poor counter example to the type of business that fits your OPs assertions.