oh, the horror

Not sure what any of those have to do with the state owning the means of production, but ok.

Government funding of specific things has nothing to do with socialism. If it did, literally every government would be socialist just for existing and the term would have no meaning.
The Shuttle was mostly built and serviced by private businesses. Schools rely on private businesses for supplies and materials. Many, many towns and counties hire private plow operators, and at any rate not a single snowplow in the US is pushed by a government-made vehicle.

you're confusing communism and socialism. The service is run by the government in socialism, in communism (marxist envisioned), everything is made and operated by the government

Nope, I'm really not.

Noooo, it's socialism when it's "social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy." See, words have meanings.

They are various flavors and levels of socialism. The U.S. Is similar to European social democracies in that we have a socialized police force, fire department and education system. These are all government run and funded entities that do not produce profits. Unlike most European social democracies, the U.S. doesn't have socialized medicine. I can't say how the proportion of plows that are government run compares to privately run. I'm also not familiar with how NASA was funded but I always assumed they were government funded for decades. Education in the U.S. is socialized. Taxpayers fund it, all children are accepted as students and teachers are considered public employees. That private companies sometimes donate to schools to fill in the gaps of limited funding does not change anything.

Again, government funding is not socialism. It's just government funding. Socialism is something different; that's why there are different words for it.
NASA is funded in much the same way the military is. They manufacture very little on their own. For most of their big programs they take the taxpayer money they get and give it to Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup-Grumman, or some other firm through a contract (hence the term "contractor"). The means of production are 100% private, the government is simply a customer and the contractor makes a profit on the sale (usually - if their performance is poor they might not).
"Socialism" as a concept is only a couple hundred years old. It can't possibly be meant to describe literally any and all government involvement or else there would be no need for socialist revolutions - socialism would already be in place.

Obviously there's more to socialism than government funding, which is why I said I'm not sure about NASA. But in order for something to be considered socialized, it's not necessary for it to have no dealings with private organizations.

I'm just going to say this one more time. Socialism requires social - in our context, that's the government, but it doesn't necessarily have to be - control of the means of production. We have social participation in it through regulation and transaction, but not anything like the degree of control needed to satisfy the definition outside of hysterical opinion pieces, especially those of the "right wing."

I'll say this as many times as I need to, your definition of socialism is one of many.