The space program was never anywhere near as expensive as the military
That's not saying much.
the R&D from the space program resulted in an enormous variety of downstream technological developments
People say that about military spending all the time. Pretty much any major investment in anything will have knock-on benefits elsewhere. If we built a 10-mile high pyramid to house the remains of RBG, it would probably lead to some amazing breakthroughs in masonry and would create loads of jobs.
If the best reason you can come up with for doing something is that it will have some positive unintended side effects, then it's probably not a great idea. Like, you could just do those side effects directly.
Having said that, many unmanned missions have led directly to major scientific advances, not to mention improvements in communications and navigation. Manned spaceflight mostly exists for PR purposes and is nowhere near worth the expense or risk. Setting up a base on the moon or sending people to Mars would be literally pointless and I can't believe anyone with half a brain would even suggest it. About the only worthwhile thing humans can do in space is bring back samples and perform complicated in situ experiments, but with the rate that robotics and AI are developing, we should increasingly be able to do those things with unmanned missions, which are much cheaper and safer.
It can also be an extremely effective way to drive focus on issues that affect humanity as a whole, such as climate change.
Burning vast amounts of fuel for no reason is not a good way of stopping climate change.
People say that about military spending all the time.
Sure, but does the space program butcher people by the millions?
If the best reason you can come up with for doing something is that it will have some positive unintended side effects, then it’s probably not a great idea. Like, you could just do those side effects directly.
That's not really how research works. You can't say "just aim for those unanticipated benefits right out of the gate" because the very nature of those benefits is unanticipated.
Manned spaceflight mostly exists for PR purposes and is nowhere near worth the expense or risk.
If we can't leave the planet, we're vulnerable to all sorts of humanity-ending catastrophes.
Burning vast amounts of fuel for no reason is not a good way of stopping climate change.
We've both pointed out good reasons for the space program to exist, and the carbon footprint of space travel is small compared to about a thousand other things.
That's not saying much.
People say that about military spending all the time. Pretty much any major investment in anything will have knock-on benefits elsewhere. If we built a 10-mile high pyramid to house the remains of RBG, it would probably lead to some amazing breakthroughs in masonry and would create loads of jobs.
If the best reason you can come up with for doing something is that it will have some positive unintended side effects, then it's probably not a great idea. Like, you could just do those side effects directly.
Having said that, many unmanned missions have led directly to major scientific advances, not to mention improvements in communications and navigation. Manned spaceflight mostly exists for PR purposes and is nowhere near worth the expense or risk. Setting up a base on the moon or sending people to Mars would be literally pointless and I can't believe anyone with half a brain would even suggest it. About the only worthwhile thing humans can do in space is bring back samples and perform complicated in situ experiments, but with the rate that robotics and AI are developing, we should increasingly be able to do those things with unmanned missions, which are much cheaper and safer.
Burning vast amounts of fuel for no reason is not a good way of stopping climate change.
Sure, but does the space program butcher people by the millions?
That's not really how research works. You can't say "just aim for those unanticipated benefits right out of the gate" because the very nature of those benefits is unanticipated.
If we can't leave the planet, we're vulnerable to all sorts of humanity-ending catastrophes.
We've both pointed out good reasons for the space program to exist, and the carbon footprint of space travel is small compared to about a thousand other things.