I don't want to discuss what is quack science, or real science. I just want to look at how effective quack scientists are at mobilizing public support for themselves, as opposed to real science.
If NASA went around making inflated claims about what they hoped they might find,... say on Titan..."if only they would fund us", I bet people would empty their wallets into the program real quick. And then when we got there and didn't find anything they'd be all disappointed, but they'd turn right around and do it again for the next insane project. It's just a matter of staying one preposterous claim ahead of the last failure. If the magical unicorns aren't running around on Titan, then maybe they'll be on Callisto, or Io.
Quack science does a better job of capturing peoples' imaginations because..... um.... that's where quack science comes from and what it's made of. Real science is always impeded by its need to stay in the real world. Is it possible for real science to do anything to make up the difference?